Today I would like to make a prediction regarding the further incitement of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, which I believe will result no matter what the outcome of the upcoming court martial trial of Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first American soldier to be charged in the prisoner abuse scandal of Abu Ghraib. This prediction is based on the following quote, taken from an article in the Boston Globe:

Considering the volcanic effects in both Washington and Iraq from the abuse allegations, the charges Sivits faces at his court-martial carry relatively minor sentences. If convicted on all three charges, he could face a year in jail, reduction in his rank, and loss of two-thirds of his military pay for a year.

Assuming Sivits is given the maximum sentencing of a year in jail, reduction in rank, and reduction in his military pay, I don't think the Arab world will feel any better about the incident.

First, I would doubt the average Arab cares at all about Sivits' rank or pay as a soldier, so in the eyes of these people, his punishment will only be one year in prison. In countries where such sexual abuses would most likely be punished by death, even a strong legal condemnation in this court martial will seem like no punishment at all.

This is not to say that the Arab world is correct, or that the punishments in question are not enough; the point is that by occupying an Arab country, our business becomes their business, and our military is put in the awkward position of concerning itself with what uneducated, poor Iraqis think about our military justice system.

This seems to be the biggest problem thus far with the war effort in Iraq. The U.S. forces are more often than not put in a lose-lose situation, where either the American people or the new American protectorate of Iraq will become enraged. Our soldiers and military leaders must now walk the fine line between diplomacy and war, which keeps them from doing their job.

Only adding to the mess is the fact that the media, liberal and conservative, has failed to recognize the situation for what it is. Liberal columnists talk of Arab sentiment as if it were more important than America winning the war, and in the process discredit their views, as they appear to be turning against our soldiers. Conservatives, on the other hand, denounce any attempt to appeal to the Iraqi and Arab population as "appeasement" and completely fail to recognize the importance of winning the hearts and minds of those we are now effectively ruling. Further, conservative columnists unsurprisingly denounce liberal views as "anti-American" and blame the left for encouraging terrorists and Iraqi insurgents (a la Vietnam).

The lesson? As always, the National Review is wrong, the Nation is wrong, and the answer lies smack dab in the middle. Americans must be sensitive to Arab sentiment and keep the moral high-ground, but be strong in fighting, and let the military do what it must to win the war. Is this kind of balance possible to achieve? We'll see. At least the current predicament may serve as a lesson to the neocons before they make occupation and nation-building a new American hobby.