For the most part, . . . the insurgents' attacks are less nihilistic than they are logical and precisely focused, whether against the American coalition and its camp followers or their Iraqi agents and collaborators. The truth is that however vicious or even sadistic the insurgents may be, they are acutely aware of their popular base, and are responsible for fewer unintentional "collateral" casualties than are the clumsy and overarmed American forces. (emphasis added, "Letter from Baghdad," January/February 2005)That's an important point worth reiterating, as some Americans favor "an alternative occupation," mistakenly believing that foreign soldiers of an army of occupation are kinder and gentler, less likely to kill civilians, than Iraqi insurgents are.
Langewiesche also makes another significant point: "The Iraqi security forces are riddled with insurgents, not because the vetting is poor, or because agents have been planted, but because hatred of America has grown within the ranks just as it has in Iraqi society at large" (January/February 2005). There goes the American dream of Iraqification.
Langewiesche, however, is still trapped in his own myth: "Tragically, this was not the necessary outcome of the American invasion" (January/February 2005). Liberals like Langewiesche think that it is a mistake, rather than the nature, of Washington that it has not "humbly sought their [Iraqis'] support, respected their views of solutions, of political power, of American motivations, or of the history and future of Iraq" (January/February 2005). Either they have learned nothing from history, or they live in denial of the reality of the American empire. Faith in a possibility of a benevolent empire goes hand in hand with a racist belief, and Langewiesche is no exception in this regard. He is capable of saying that "some of the blame lies with the immaturity and opportunism of the Iraqi people" (emphasis added, January/February 2005). In other words, his racism makes him dare to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to make the occupation work, because the interests of the Iraqi people and the American occupier are identical, which is akin to claiming that it is the responsibility of slaves to make slavery work, because the interests of slaves and masters are one and the same.
Langewiesche thinks that "we" should have "explained ourselves honestly" to the Iraqi people (January/February 2005). There is no "we" in America, first of all, but no one can get it in his head and remain a liberal. In any case, Washington has explained its motive plainly enough: it wants Full Spectrum Dominance in all spheres of life, military, politics, and economy. It's been always the same goal at least since World War 2, if not earlier. The world, not just Iraqis, has heard it, and, except Washington's lackeys, no one has liked that, and no one ever will.
Thankfully, Washington no longer has economic supremacy to achieve its goal. A sore loser, it seeks to compensate for its declining economic power by aggressive assertions of military power. In doing so, however, it will only succeed in bringing about Full Spectrum Disorder.