What Next?!: The U.S. Military is an occupying force.Isn't it time they started being allowed to act like it.

'The war' has been going on now for well over a year. As an american veteran, with experience in the Middle East region, I have always maintained that the use of force (not necessarily with U.S. forces [exclusively]) would be an inevitability for stability in the region. Many who know me personally know that I often qualify my position that "we are doing the right thing, but I suspect for the wrong reasons". I also believe that civilians have no place in a combat zone, if for no other reason than they have no privilege to defensively arm themselves.

However, I think my animus for the events of late comes not only from the notion that opponents of the U.S. presence in Iraq seem to deem any western citizen or ally a reasonable target for retribution (this observation is based on recent and long past events), but that our forces are once again being wielded as political pawns in this game of Middle Eastern chess. And the price of staying in the game is continued, seemingly unneccessary losses of U.S. personnel (in general).

Our leader, Mr. Bush, and his cabinet, for PR's sake, have constrained our forces in an effort to make it look like we're not exactly what we are. An occupying force. If they were allowed to act like the occupying force that they are, it is my educated opinion that our losses would be significantly lessened. No, Iraqi citizens would not have the level of freedom they currently enjoy, but for our own (reasonable) safety, there is certainly some middle ground between the brutish nature of the Hussain regime, and the warm fuzzy we're trying to paint the current mission with. In truth, the current operation reminds me much of a comic routine by Bill Cosby.

The Coin Toss (by Bill Cosby, "Bill Cosby is a Really Funny Fellow... Right." 1963):

BC: At the beginning of every football game, a referee comes out and he introduces the two team captains and then he flips a coin.

Ref: Captain Harbords(ph), this is Captain Soberds(ph). Captain Soberds, this is Captain Harbords. Call the toss there, Captain Harbords. Captain Harbords called heads. It's tails. You lose the toss. Your team wins. What will you do, Captain?

BC: Now he'll do whatever is to his advantage.

Soberds: `We will receive. We will receive.'

Ref: All right, fans. This team here will receive. They will receive. And what will these guys do?

Harbords: 'We will kick off. We will kick off.'

Ref: All right. This team here will kick off. They will kick off. All right.

BC: Now I was thinking that perhaps what would happen--suppose way back in history, if you had a referee before every war, and the guy called the toss? Let's go to the Revolutionary War. OK.

Ref: Captain Harbords of the British, this is Captain Soberds of the settlers. Captain Soberds of the settlers, this is Captain Harbords of the British. Call the toss there, British. British called heads. It's tails. You lose the toss, British. The settlers win. What will you do, settlers? ... All right. The settlers say that during the war they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot from behind the rocks, the trees and everywhere. Says that your team must wear red and march in a straight line...

There's also an except in this routine about Custer and the Indians, but I'm loathe to make that parallel here... I think you get the picture.