United States’ policy in Iraq is more confused with each change in strategy. Preventing civil war in Iraq was President Bush’s prime goal. It committed the United States to support Iraq’s democratically elected, central government.  

This commitment placed our troops in armed conflicts with the Sunni insurgents that opposed the U.S. occupation and the central government. So, it seems as if Bush declared a clear enemy and clear purpose for our troops being in Iraq. However, U.S. commanders recently revealed a new war strategy making al Qaida the central target over all other interests.

United States’ commanders say they are arming the Sunni insurgents and other Iraq tribes fighting al Qaida. Supposedly, Sunni insurgents   promised not attack U.S. troops if we did this. The Sunni insurgents are turning against al Qaida they claim, because al Qaida forces are killing Sunni members in strong armed tactics to convert them.  

It shows the confusion of U.S. purpose in Iraq and its moral principles that U.S. commanders consider arming the Sunni insurgency that receives the weapons with the blood of U.S. troops dripping from their hands. How, without any declaration of truce or of mission accomplished can Bush agree to arm people he declared our enemy?  Obviously he adopted the philosophy, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I question what kind of friend are they and for how long? They were very resourceful finding weapons to kill U.S. combat troops. They should be as resourceful fighting al Qaida agents that are killing their family members. 

I doubt if the Shiites appreciate the U.S. military arming their civil war opponents, the Sunni insurgents who have been killing them in sectarian violence three years.  Their dispute with the Sunni will continue long after they drive al Qaida from their land. Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s government opposes the U.S. military supplying the insurgents and other tribal groups with weapons, because he fears it will create new militias. This is a reasonable fear, because this Iraq government has been fighting Sunni insurgents and other tribal military units four years.

A few weeks ago, President Bush set some milestones the fledgling Iraq democracy must meet if it expects continued military support. It had to show good progress training Iraqi security forces capable of protecting Iraq against the insurgents and against al Qaida.  Now, U.S. commanders tell Prime Minister Maliki that he should include the newly armed Sunni insurgents and tribal militias in Iraq’s security forces so the government can control them. This response is intellectually and morally corrupt.

Iraq’s central government could not control Sunni insurgents and outlaw militias before even with the support of over hundred-thousand plus U.S. troops.  It will have less chance controlling them now that U.S. commanders supplied them weapons.  One could reluctantly excuse this strategy if U.S. commanders supplied the weapons through Iraq’s government or give the appearance this government had some say over the distribution. As it is, Iraq’s central government will not have real control over the insurgents and armed militias even if they join the government’s security forces.

This latest move by President Bush disrespects Iraq as a democratic nation and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki as its elected leader and commander of its armed forces. “We are in Iraq to defend Iraq’s democracy and its government duly elected by Iraq’s citizens.”  Bush made this self-righteous statement to justify U.S. troops remaining in Iraq after his “weapons of mass destruction” scare proved a myth.  By supplying weapons to Iraq’s outlaw militia groups over Iraqi leaders’ objections, Bush mocks Iraq’s democracy and those democratic principles American troops fight for in Iraq and around the world.  

The disintegration of American democracy is al Qaida’s greatest weapon and is its biggest victory despite military defeats.  Al Qaida leaders only need to point to America’s inconsistency in supporting democratic principles to gain recruits. It can argue that American leaders care nothing for the Iraqi people, American people or the principles they send their troops to defend.

They probably say, “Look how Americans only talk about winning this war to protect their homeland. They ignore how their war drove millions of Iraq from their nation and forced millions still in Iraq to flee their homes. Most pointedly, I hear them saying, “We have fought and died for the same principles for decades.  A few months ago the Americans y asked their troops to die fighting insurgents. Today, they armed those same insurgents, who after they fight us, will again fight the Americans. If this is democracy then where are its values?

The rebuttal is for Americans to pressure government officials to model American democratic principles. Otherwise, they should replace them with leaders who can protect us and protect our values.

Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. opinion@ethicalego.com.