A postmortem exam, also known as an autopsy, is extremely important in understanding the human body and how it works. In many instances, it’s the only way to determine the cause of death or treatment failure. Postmortem exams give us information on disease processes and how to improve the medical treatment in the next patient with similar poorly understood findings.
This became less important in the 20th century, as we were able to see the insides of the human body with X-rays, ultrasounds, CT scans, MRI, and so on. Although the postmortem is done less frequently now, it’s still very important in forensic medicine to explain the cause of sudden or unexplained deaths and in crimes.
Forensic medicine is still largely dependent on findings found antemortem to assist in the postmortem dissection of organs and tissues. The pathologist then renders his “gross anatomic diagnosis” based on his visual and morbid examination. It’s only weeks later, after the organs and tissues are fixed, that the tissues can be sliced and microscopic slides made. The slides are then read through a microscope, after which the “micro anatomic diagnosis” can be rendered.
The pathologist then combines these findings, and the entire final report, once given to the clinician, can be useful.
Almost all human endeavor, both private and public, depends significantly on the “retrospective-scope,” whether on land, at sea, in the air, or in space. Sports have a coach to evaluate plays and project corrections during the action, much like a physician evaluating a patient during an active disease process and altering the subsequent treatment program. Sports also rely significantly on peering inside their plays during post-game sessions with the players as they view the game on film so that they can make corrections in their next game—the revised game or treatment plan.
This isn’t a review of the microscopic details of the Iraq war. That must be left to the generals and historians. It’s simply a gross overview of how the war could have been better played and could possibly have modernized the entire Arab society, bringing them into the 21st century.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. observed that at the end of Desert Storm, the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq, he was able to look down on Baghdad and lamented that his orders were to stop at the Iraq border. He implied that he could have continued and taken Saddam Hussein and finished the Persian Gulf War rather quickly.
Hussein had miscalculated the support from the Arab League. The Kuwait, or first Gulf War, eventually became the second Gulf War, later called the Iraq War. It was then predicted that the hanging of Hussein would liberate Iraq and produce a democratic state in less than a year. It was the height of naiveté to think that one could produce a democracy when neither they nor any of the other members of the Arab League had any experience with democracy.
After World War II, Gen. Douglas MacArthur ruled Japan for 13 years. This allowed for Japan’s transformation into a free or more civil nation through a complete cycle of primary and secondary education. Thus, by age 18, a whole generation of Japanese had been exposed to the basic elements of a free and democratic society.
They have remained a free society and maintained our friendship as allies for more than 60 years. They remained our allies as we used our military bases there for service through the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Had we done the same in Iraq as we did in Japan, we could have had the chance to civilize the Middle East. By having the commanding general establish a strong presence with impenetrable military bases in Iraq, as we did in Japan, and given him the same power that we gave to MacArthur, could we have done this in Iraq with the same result?
If we had done the same under our commanding general and stayed in Iraq as long as MacArthur did in Japan, then the Arabs in Iraq would have been educated in freedom instead of a hate environment from kindergarten through high school. Then a whole generation of Arabs would have been bathed in liberty, civility, and democracy.
With a democracy flourishing in Iraq, that would have been the greatest incentive for the Arab League to change its course after thousands of years of hostility. This new democracy could have changed a whole generation of Arabs and Muslims and could have been the most efficacious way to change the course of the Middle East.
My colleagues from Israel say that Muslims in the Middle East are taught by their parents and by their schools one essential thing concerning the Jews. What could be overheard in schoolyard talk? “Who are the Jews? They are our enemy. What do we do with our enemies? We kill them!”
Our leaders thought that they could leave Iraq within six months after the war was “won.” However, 18 years of being taught “hatred” and to “kill” can’t be reversed in six months or even six years—possibly not even in the 13 years we took in Japan—of being taught the message of human freedom, love, and friendship. But then our leaders at the time didn’t have enough public support to establish peace.
Postmortem exams can’t restore life or change history. But did we learn from our postmortem of Iraq to avoid another death? With our lack of understanding of Arab history, we have failed to move society forward. Will the Arab wars or ISIS that we’re observing continue for another millennium? Didn’t we miss our chance to change the history of the Middle East?
Again, we’re faced with the age-old reality—not understanding history—and we’re condemned to repeat it. And shed American blood unnecessarily? Unfortunately.
