The Measure of Progress in Iraq

by Robert J. Romano

June 26th, 2005

The measure of progress in Iraq, if thought to constitute both casualties and the presence of terrorism in that newly freed state, paints a slightly grim portrait of the prospects of the coalition effort.  Critics suggest that the foreign presence of troops only attracts terrorists, and there is certainly a steady supply of bombers, and presumably that our indefinite presence in Iraq will not be able to defeat the insurgency.  Thus, it is suggested that our prospects there will be measured by the presence of opposition to democracy and freedom in Iraq.  If there is violent opposition to the constitutional process, according to this logic, then there is no progress and the mission is failing, since the goal would be to simply reduce casualties to zero and that there be universal consensus in Iraq.  With this criticism, it is demanded that a pullout of troops occur, since the mission shall never succeed because our troops were presumably the problem.  Perhaps this all could be true, if only our troops were taking on an overwhelming majority of the casualties in Iraq.

        In many instances, attacks have been targeted against Iraqi recruits: police officers, national guard, etc. and also civilians, and it should be clear to all that the terrorists' target is the free people of Iraq.  However, besides exacting revenge and taking lives, they have failed in preventing the political process from moving forward.  The January elections occurred despite violence which was intent upon terrorizing the populace and perhaps preventing the democratic process, and today the transitional government is drafting a new constitution which shall replace the interim constitution.  Soon, the draft of Iraq's law will be presented to the people, and they can choose to ratify it or not.  What is important to our prospects in Iraq is whether this process can move forward in an inclusive manner which empowers the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who do not share allegiance with the terrorists.  The acts of a violent few ought not be thought to undermine the progress of freedom and democracy in the heart of Iraq.  The drafting of a new law by and for Iraqis ought to supersede the dreary presentation of casualties and terrorists as the measure for progress.  For, the purpose of security is to defend the people and to ensure that there is a free forum for politics to occur.  So long as the process is moving forward, and the insurgents fail to undermine the free form of government in Iraq, then I believe the insurgents' activities should be viewed as a failure.

        The terrorists' war on Iraq depends not on America's support, but rather those who sponsor and harbor terrorists.  The idea that America is responsible for terrorism in Iraq (and presumably, in the world) diverts blame from where it belongs.  The Iraqi people deserve not only our military support, but also our respect, and I believe a negative view of events in Iraq only gives half of the story, and the American people cannot see the progress that is being made on the ground every day.  Just because I can't see the progress personally, and just because it may not be on the cover of the news everyday, I believe that these unsung heroes deserve more gratitude from the American people for the fantastic work that is being done.  Our mission there is defend this new constitutional government and sovereign nation from the killers.  The reason we are there is because America is and shall always be a friend to freedom's expansion in the world.  Just because things get hard, we will not turn our backs on the Iraqi people.  We will use our power to make certain that the free Iraq never falls.  Anything less is to equivocate on our willingness and to cast aspersions on our capability to defend liberty.

        I believe that our fighting men and women deserve a little bit more from those who are responsible for informing the American public about progress in Iraq.  If the American people are demanding there be progress, would it not stand to reason that there is some responsibility for reporting on the progress which is continually occurring? If casualties are to be the sole measure of progress, then why would anybody support any war? The justice of our conflict against terror and tyranny is not to maximize enemy casualties and to minimize our side's casualties, rather it is that tyranny is to be abolished and has been abolished in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the people there are now free, and that one day, all the peoples of the world shall be free! The insurgency in Iraq stands against some of the best progress in that country's recent history, and I believe that to simply measure the war based upon casualties and the presence of terrorism in Iraq is to only tell half of the story.  The political aspect of the mission in Iraq has been secured, and the economy too is growing, and the violence has failed to undermine the other two.  Though there are casualties, as in all wars, they are on behalf of the just cause of defending the Iraqi people and the free republic there.

        To turn our backs on the Iraqi people, or to suggest that a pullout occur without defending Iraq, is to equivocate on our commitment to the people there.  We must state clearly that America will never allow freedom to fail in Iraq.  We will not throw this country to the killers who would presume to be the tyrants.  The terrorists' goal is related not only to exacting revenge on the Iraqi people and the foreign troops, but in undermining our political will at home to carry out the mission. 

        We must be steady in our resolve, and we need to remind ourselves of what the mission is: to secure a free and democratic Iraq, no matter what.  The measure of progress is the state of freedom and democracy in Iraq, and whether or not the people's liberty is secure.  So long as the free government functions effectively, and establishes equal rights for all citizens, we can measure very significant progress in our efforts.  I believe that we must have faith in the democratic process in Iraq, and we must understand that an entire people is dependent upon our capability to protect them.  Freedom is not safe in this world without American vigilance, and we must support the mission and see it to its completion. 

        Congress ought to state the goals of freedom and democracy and pass a resolution supporting our efforts there.  Perhaps we all should know which representatives support our mission in Iraq, and which ones do not, so that way the Iraqi people will know which ones to trust and which ones don't care.  One cannot oppose the war in Iraq without opposing freedom's expansion to the Middle East.  Our failure in Iraq would not bode well for liberty's future, and it will not come from a military defeat, but rather the collapse of the American people's political will.  It would come at the cost of our willingness, not because of our capability.  I implore the critics to consider that, since our progress is not measured by public perception or support, and it is not measured in lives, it is charted by the defense of the freedom and independence of the democratic Iraq.  To measure our progress differently is to misstate what the mission actually is.