The fault with current US strategy is that it subjects Iraq’s civilian population to extreme instances of violence and destruction. Iraqi society has been subjected to instability and near anarchy for nine months now, since the start of the US invasion of Iraq. During these past months, even walking the streets in Iraq can be perilous due to high amounts of crime in addition to the frequent firefights between guerrillas and US forces.

Firefights between guerrillas and US forces often result in massive destruction to the surrounding area. Using overwhelming force in response to attacks, even in crowded marketplaces or on busy streets, US forces cause otherwise avoidable losses of civilian life. Indeed, human rights organizations have been increasingly critical of the US strategy in Iraq; Human Rights Watch just issued a report warning that US action in Iraq “suggests that civilian casualties are not a paramount concern.”

Current US policies have not gone without repercussions. Recent polls taken in Iraq show that Iraqi society is now looking at US forces as occupiers rather than as liberators. In certain cities in Iraq, children hold up pictures of Saddam Hussein; in other areas, people cheer when US soldiers are shot at or when military helicopters are blasted down. The more Iraqis who develop a negative image of US forces, the greater the risk that they will cooperate, support or sympathize with the guerrilla fighters. The danger of turning off the civilian population is already evident in certain Iraqi cities, such as in Abu Ghraib.

Here, US troops have been fighting residents in addition to guerrillas. US forces have also fired on journalists attempting to cover such operations; Alex Berenson of the New York Times recently reported that in Abu Ghraib US troops “fired on a photographer trying to cover the fighting and barred reporters from viewing the scene.” Whether the harsh treatment of journalists is official policy or simply accidental does not matter as it causes the Iraqi population and the international world to question the validity of US involvement in Iraq.

Images of US soldiers using overwhelming force in their exchanges with Iraqi guerrillas paint an increasingly negative picture of US involvement in Iraq. While such controversial images may be suppressed in the United States, they are not elsewhere; as well as on Arab television networks, European news networks show videos of US troops using overwhelming force in response to attacks. Instead of attempting to prevent these images from reaching the outside world, greater peacekeeping training must be given to US forces to prevent their fighting methods from turning off not only Iraqi society, but also the greater world.

The increasingly violent gunfights between US forces and guerrillas help to add to the feeling of anarchy in Iraq. The longer that Iraqi society has to deal with a feeling of anarchy, the greater the chance that Iraqis will demand an immediate exit of US forces. Certainly, Iraqi society is used to hardship. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, many Iraqis were subjected to political repression and persecution. Saddam’s extensive security apparatus permeated all layers of Iraqi society. However, despite Saddam’s transgressions, Iraqis lived relatively stable lives; with the toppling of Saddam’s regime, this stability is as elusive as the former leader.

For example, while US forces have eliminated much institutionalized political repression in Iraq, in practice, political repression still takes place. Due to the general lawlessness of the country, publishing or airing an unpopular view could result in death from a plethora of militant groups formed after Saddam’s fall. But even more worrying than the political repression is the physical repression that is the result of the failure of US authorities to institute law and order. In addition to the danger of becoming caught in the middle of an exchange of gunfire, there is also the general danger of being mugged, raped or murdered. Under Saddam, such instances were rare; now, however, they are commonplace as the Iraqi police are largely dysfunctional and just as corrupt as they were under Saddam.

Unfortunately, the continued anarchy affecting Iraqi society could cause a serious catastrophe. The anarchy in Iraq may be deepening the rift between the different ethnic groups within the country.

Already, in the ensuing anarchy after the fall of Saddam, a series of revenge killings took place, as the Shiite majority hunted down and killed former members of Saddam’s traditionally Sunni ruling party. As the Shiite majority recognizes their strength in numbers and attempts to gain more power in Iraqi society, the minority Sunnis will not react kindly to disenfranchisement.

There is also northern Iraq and the strong Kurdish population residing there. The Kurds have their own form of government and their own military forces and will not allow themselves to become subservient to a government in Baghdad that does not represent their interests and ambitions.

Therefore, the dangers in failing to pacify Iraq are immense. For Washington, failure to pacify will mean the end of its goal of stabilizing Iraq in order to foster an Iraqi government that supports US interests in the region. For Iraqis and the region as a whole, an exit of US forces from Iraq without another party filling the power vacuum will fuel disagreement and violence between Iraq’s heterogeneous society and possibly result in the fragmentation of Iraq’s current territorial integrity.