In the media blitz to raise anti-war sentiment against the Bush Administration over the conflict in Iraq, there are some facts that are being pushed under the table which bear consideration by people other than the liberal media and Democrats who are looking for ways to capitalize on the relentless drive to raise enough public sentiment against the war to cut and run from the situation, without completing job.

Many Americans do not understand what is really happening in the Middle Eastern country of Iraq, nor the surrounding countries in the region for that matter. The mistake they make repeatedly in dealing with any conflict centered in the Middle East is trying to view the dynamics through the eyes of the myopic American press, whose function has become the systematic attempt to debunk any American government foreign policy that results in taking on the complexities associated with any foreign conflict which lasts more than a few weeks.

This political policy of the media began with the Vietnam conflict, and has carried forward with a vengeance ever since. If anyone takes a close look at how the American press covers war, it is not difficult to see that the effort to cover and magnify any disagreement with government policy begins on the first day of conflict, and continues with growing intensity until victory is achieved or until the media can produce enough social unrest to move politicians to change their tactics in dealing with anti-war sentiment. With this dynamic in place, the American media places enough pressure on the government to win a decisive victory in a short timeframe, or risk losing public support for the effort regardless of how worthy the cause, or how right the reasons for going to war. One of the most powerful tools of the media is to focus on American casualties resulting from a conflict. No matter how many or how few the casualties, the press will use the numbers to coerce the public to call for an end to the fighting, while covering their practices by leaving Americans with the impression that only the media honors those who have been killed or wounded fighting for their country.

Of course the loss of American lives in fighting for what we believe is a consequence of any war, and everyone who sends our men into battle feels the weight of this loss one life at a time. No war can be fought without paying a heavy price in human lives. The object of fighting however is to cause the enemy to lose more men than we do; a simple fact of the sacrifice a society must be prepared to make to prevail in war. The facts that elude the press and a seemingly growing number of Americans are that our soldiers won the war with Iraq in a very short time with a surprisingly small loss of American lives. We defeated Saddam and his government soldiers so quickly that some leaders of our country were caught up in a euphoric hope of finishing the job following victory equally as fast.

The American wartime tradition has been not only to defeat its enemies, but to rebuild the countries we have conquered, and leave them better than we found them. American occupation policy has been to establish a democratic government to replace the vanquished enemy's civilian governmental system. Unfortunately, this policy does not always work as well as we hope, and in the case of the Middle East, the job is more difficult than other regions. Since America does not have the will or the heart to abandon vanquished nations to sort out their own problems as a consequence of bringing our nation into war, our government must take action to leave defeated countries with capable civilian leadership established. In the case of Iraq, implementing this tradition requires our military forces to continue battling with the historic dynamic of the Middle Eastern tradition to accomplish this part of our mission to achieve our goal for turning enemies into friends. Since the history of the Middle East is one of tyranny and brutal dictatorship seizing and holding power through fear and brute force, creating a democracy there is a tall order. The people there are familiar with rule by intimidation from the strongest and most brutal leader that rises to the top. Though many may long for what the ideal of America has to offer, they immediately began their traditional process of fighting each other for dominance, while also trying to conform to the imposed new rules of the American conquering army.

The real question that remains on the table in Iraq is whether or not America is willing to sacrifice the lives of its fighting men to ensure that the tradition of brute force leadership is ended once and for all in that country, and replaced by the voice and participation of all its people, regardless of what faction they belong to. The cost in American lives may be greater in winning this goal than we suffered to win the war itself. Our government believes it is vital for us to avoid future war by dealing with how the lives of the people in Iraq are changed. The American media is busy calling on as many people as they can find who are committed to leaving Iraq to find its own way forward, without sacrificing any more American lives or resources to finish the job we have started. The truth is that even facing the current level of difficulties in Iraq, the sacrifice of American lives has been far less in this portion of the effort than we have borne with other countries where our wartime tradition has prevailed. If we leave the country without completing our whole mission, we will likely be returning there again in the future to vanquish yet another threat to our right to pursue the way of life we believe in.

There is no guarantee that a democratic leadership in Iraq will ultimately become our allies, but we have a better chance of dealing successfully with a system of government similar to our own than with an unpredictable dictatorship which will likely arise in our premature withdrawal. To accomplish our goal, we must be willing to deal with both the disapproval of the forces of chaos in Iraq, and the misunderstanding of our own people for what is at stake in achieving more than military victory. Rather than becoming disgruntled and weary with the skewed media assessment of what our government is trying to achieve, we should be more interested in how to make sure the time and resources going into this effort are being used to produce the most beneficial results. We have not lost the war in Iraq as the media would have us believe, but we have also not yet achieved our goals in dealing with the victory we already won. For political reasons, members of our government cannot openly say the things I have pointed out in this article, for fear of creating difficulties with other leaders in the Middle East and the world. The press will not support this perspective in their own coverage, because these views do not meet the bias of their agenda.

I do not pretend my own views presented in this article are how others should think or feel for themselves, but it is important that more facts be brought to light than the government or our press are willing to offer.