Those who have read my previous thoughts on the current conflict in Iraq know that I have opposed this conflict from the beginning, arguing that it was counter-to our national interests, and justified on the misleading/false/deceitful/exaggerated claims by the Bush administration in the lead-up.
All of that being said however, I do not support withdrawing the troops, but rather believe that we must stay the course in Iraq until the bitter end, and that it would be preferable to commit troops to that nation indefinitely rather than see the nation descend into a civil war that could become the next Lebanon, or worse. Although such an outcome may be inevitable, thanks to the utter incompetence in our reconstruction efforts, now is not the time to quit.
This is obviously an important issue and debate in the nation today and while I try to avoid posting antire articles that someone else wrote, I believe the following short editorial in the Lebanon paper, The Daily Star, really articulates me own frustration over the nature of the current debate:
"We in the Arab world are shocked by the ease with which so many American journalists and commentators are calling for the speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. After cajoling the international community into accepting this war and then transforming Iraq into a horrific scene of terrorist violence and sectarian strife, Americans are starting to realize that creating a stable and democratic Iraq will entail much more work than they had bargained for. And as citizens of the world's sole superpower, they have the luxury of being fickle, while Iraqis are left to suffer in the wake of their invasion, occupation and withdrawal.
Even those who were beating the war drums prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have now joined the chorus of calls for American forces to leave. Thomas Friedman, a supporter of the war, wrote yesterday in an op-ed that perhaps "America is wasting its time" in Iraq and should "arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind" because "we must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children." Such statements are not only insensitive, they reflect a broader American perspective - a privileged people's utter disregard or outright contempt for "others."
While Iraqis are dying on a daily basis, Americans are discussing the idea of a U.S. withdrawal in columns and on talk shows and in coffee shops with an alarming sense of detachment. And although it was the Americans who brought this war to the Iraqi people, they now discuss the mission as if it were an experiment that can be abandoned at any time. It is a tragedy that so many lives are being affected by the whims of a superpower.
As the unpopularity of the Iraq war gains momentum in the United States, more and more American journalists and commentators who participated in the rallying calls for war have become critical of the U.S. mission in Iraq. While it is a welcome development that so many are acknowledging the mistakes that the United States has made and are bringing the Bush administration to task for these errors, one wonders where was their criticism of U.S. President George W. Bush prior to the invasion? Why did so few intellectuals counter the war-mongering arguments then?
Unable to maintain electoral pressure through lobbyists or special interest groups, the Arab world is left to accept whatever fate America may decide to impose. And the interests of Americans can change as they see fit. Americans have the luxury of deciding whether to "stay the course" or to leave Iraq in ruins. But it is the Arab and Iraqi people whose lives are at stake when America meanders in and out of their presence at will.
There is no doubt that building a peaceful and stable Iraq will be costly, time consuming and not at all easy. But the leadership in Washington has made a promise on behalf of the American people that they will see this adventure through to that end. The Americans have made a vow of friendship to the Iraqi people that ought not be broken. While we in the Arab world welcome efforts to promote peace and democracy, we are not in need of fair weather friends."
4 comments:
I too have been more than a bit worried about the blind opposition that has led those who stood against the war not to think clearly about the reality that we are there now and that just because you oppose somehting, you do not need to wish it to be a disaster. People who think that way are more concerned with being "right" than with what is good for America or Iraq.
Of course Roger raises the chicken and egg question when he wonders whether the troops are preventing or fueling a civil war, but I think immediate withdrawal is simply not tenablke. That said, I do think that developing a coherent plan for pulling out is not a bad idea -- the problem is that coherent planning and subsequent execution has not been this administration's strong suit.
dcat
Marc --
This is why one of the ironies of the occupation has been that it has produced the sorts of terrorists that we claimed were in iraqw but by and large were not, but that we have helped create, so the administration can use those terrorists to prove that they are right! It is never never land, to be sure, but that does not seem to stop them.
At a certain point, of course, we need to say that iraq has to proitect its own democracy, but I do not think that time is now. It is worrisome that we are pushing forward a constitution that so clearly has established as de facto law of the land a permanent schism based on religion. I still think that Iraq in 2010 can be a much better place than Iraq was in 2000. In most important ways it is a better place now. This is not an insignificant point.
dcat
The way you phrase the process is funny, but I'd be hard-pressed to define Saddam's regime as anything other than a reign of terror. On one level, the heavy fist of Saddam's terrorism has devolved into a looser, more desperate terrorism carried out by those who lost the fruits of his spoils and wish to reinstate the system and methods that maintained it. And no, this is not a call to depose every bloody tyrant, just an observation of how a nastily brutish, ingrained sectarian spoils system might tend to quickly devolve no matter which way one dices it.
As for constitution building, I see politics as a process that one can engage aside from physical conflict, regardless of how successful it looks so far. I would read what Noah Feldman has had to say about the role of religion in the constitution, dcat. On one hand, it smacks of the retrograde, on the other, it is a compromise that might not relegate Iraq to a trend that much less enlightened than the states of Europe which still maintain official religions. Of course, it took them a long time to get where they are now, but if this is the best time course Iraq can get w/r/t universal secular definitions of human rights then it's better than inflaming a war with the conservative leaders of the Shiite community.
Montana --
Sure, Saddam's was a reign of terror, which was my main justification for saying going to war with him was not beyond the pale. But I think reigns of terror and terrorism are at least somewhat different. And in any case, there are lots of reigns of terror out there. In Africa alone we could keep ourselves busy if we are sanctimoniously going to assert that by removing Saddam we ended a reign of terror.
I do not dispute your assertions on Constitution building. I just wish our administration would, for once, be honest about just how hard the work is going to be for these processes. And I wish they would do so from the beginning, rather than sell us a bill of goods and then halfway through tell us that we need to be willing to bear the costs of democracy. That isn't being honest with the American public. it is disingenuousness of the worst kind, and cynical disingenuousness at that.
dcat
Post a Comment