A disturbing report from Iraq

The Associated Press reported Friday that three more U.S. Marines were "killed in battle" in Iraq on Thursday. The Marines, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5, died "of wounds from fighting in western Anbar province," the U.S. military said.

It goes without saying that the United States military has the capacity to wipe out enemy fighters without losing a single American life.

In a military battle.

So if U.S. Marines are being killed in "battle" in Iraq, it must be something other than a military battle. Because if we were engaged in a military battle, we would use all the tools at our disposal to win. And we would make every effort to protect our own forces from harm.

Whatever is going on in western Anbar province, it is not a military battle.

Exactly what kind of battle is it?

Are U.S. Marines being sent into areas where "the enemy" and "innocent civilians" are side-by-side in the same buildings, with orders to kill the former without injuring the latter?

Is that what they're calling a "battle?"

If that's the case, the president of the United States has ordered our fighting forces to risk their lives in an impossible mission.

Sorting out the criminals from the decent citizens is police work, not war. It's a job for people who speak the language and know the locals.

Even the best police force is helpless when gunmen take civilians hostage. All they can do is surround the building and wait, because to storm the place will only get a lot of innocent people killed.

If insurgent fighters in Iraq have taken entire cities hostage, the U.S. military faces the same quandary.

Let's assume it is not possible to surround an entire city and wait until the gunmen die of starvation, although if it is possible, we ought to try it.

In any case, it is wishful thinking to believe that the U.S. military can stop the Iraqis from fighting for control of their government. Their government owns the oil and all the major industries of the country. Their government hands out most of the jobs. Unless Iraq's state-owned enterprises are privatized, the government will continue to control everybody's job, income, and financial security, and the only way Iraqis can survive is by showing fierce loyalty to one of the groups that has a shot at winning control of the government. (See "The Motive for War: How to Stop the Violence in Iraq" and "Why the Iraq Policy Isn't Working.")

It's undoubtedly true that international terrorists are involved in the fighting in Iraq, but they are not the cause of it. Iraq would be in a civil war even if al-Qaeda did not exist. The Iraqis are fighting for control of the government because the government controls all the wealth in the country, and it is up for grabs.

If President Bush wants to succeed in his goal of helping Iraq become "a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror," he should stop viewing Iraq through the prism of the war on terror and start thinking of it as post-Cold War Eastern Europe. Instead of asking the Secretary of Defense for a plan to win the war, he should ask the Secretaries of Treasury, Commerce, Energy and Labor for a plan to help Iraq build a free, private-sector economy.

U.S. troops have been asked to put their lives on the line for freedom. But freedom is a condition that exists under a government of limited power. A government of unlimited power is not an engine of freedom, or prosperity, or social justice. It's a target for coups and violent overthrow.

That's what's happening in Iraq. That's the "battle" in which three U.S. Marines were killed last week.

It cannot be won and it should not be fought. Not by Americans. Not by anyone who values freedom.


Copyright 2006

Editor's note: You might be interested to read "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.