My friend Jeff Jacoby warns we who want the US to withdraw from Iraq:
If US troops leave prematurely, the Iraqi government is likely to collapse, which could trigger violence on a far deadlier scale than Iraq is experiencing now. Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East. Anti-American terrorists and fanatics worldwide will be emboldened. Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, "as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11." Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish.Yet none of this seems to trouble the surrender lobby, which either doesn't think about the consequences of abandoning Iraq, or is convinced a US departure will actually make things better. "If everyone knows we're leaving, it will put the fear of God into them," Voinovich declares. Sure it will. Nothing scares Al Qaeda like seeing Americans in retreat.
Jeff is certainly correct that a bloodbath is likely, though I don't think it's correct to say that the "surrender lobby" doesn't think about these things, or is convinced things will be better in Iraq if the US leaves. Anyway, if there are pro-withdrawal advocates who aren't giving this nightmare scenario serious consideration, they had better.
That said, I honestly don't see that this is a convincing argument for staying the current troubled course. If the only thing keeping the Iraqi government in power, and in turn preventing the Sunni and the Shia from setting on each other in full fury, is the presence of US troops, what does that say about the stability of Iraq? It seems to me that to continue the occupation, with its enormous strain on the US military, in the absence of clear reasons to believe that Iraq is making progress toward stability, is wrong. Or to be more precise and less moralistic: it's not sustainable.
This is the main problem I have with the argument folks like Jeff make: they don't offer concrete and realistic proposals for how the US is supposed to continue the current policy. If it's really so absolutely vital to US national security and moral standing to carry on, then let's have a draft and/or a war tax to pay for this war, and to make Americans in general make a sacrifice for this policy. I'm not trying to be snarky here -- I really see no realistic plan for sustaining the present course, only dire warnings about what will happen if we don't.
The ugly truth is, the only way there's going to be a settled peace in Iraq is if the two (at least two) sides fight it out, and separate their populations. If we were to stay there with current troop strength for 30 years, this would still be the case. We are a superpower, but we are not omnipotent.
That's not an argument I feel good about making, because it is cold-hearted toward the tens of thousands who would die in a civil war. But to assume that the US has the capability, much less the responsibility, of preventing massive ethnic cleansing in Iraq strikes me as unrealistic. And it denies that the Iraqis have any responsibility for their own fates. Why don't the apres-nous-le-genocide stalwarts face up to the reality of what they're asking of the American military and their families? They are asking them to continue an open-ended deployment, in which they are dying or being maimed, for a cause (stopping civil war) that is ... well, if not lost, then damn close to it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"When our most basic assumptions are false, we are not motivated to change them, but instead to continue down the path we're on in order to justify having taken that path in the first place."
Rod,
Can you just support our troops and their mission until we see how the surge works. Please, just wait until September and then re-evaluate. It's not that far away, just pause and let's see. If there is no progress, I will re-evaluate my support. The surge is not that old, give it a chance.
Anyone who uses the phrase "surrender lobby" just deserves a punch in the nose.
Oh good grief, it's painful to run the clock back and see what jewels guys like Jacoby produced in the past, but let's try and gauge his accuracy on Iraq.
"WMD Headlines Miss the Real Story
by Jeff Jacoby (October 25, 2003)
"But Kay's report was only one summary of WMD findings in Iraq to be released in Washington last week. At about the same time that Kay was on Capitol Hill, an international organization called the Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, was disclosing what its highly-regarded scientists -- many of them former UN inspectors -- had discovered about Saddam's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Far from undermining the administration's rationale for war, many of the ISG's findings strengthened it -- decisively."
Ahhh, that decisively strengthened rationale for war.
"Dealing with Terror Regimes
"by Jeff Jacoby (February 19, 2003)
"It will not end with Iraq. The toppling of Saddam Hussein will make the Middle East a better place, free a nation that has suffered unspeakable cruelty, and shame the illiberal "peace movement" that even now counsels appeasement and willful blindness in the face of evil. Iraq should have been liberated during the first Gulf War; it cannot happen soon enough. "
How's that "better place" going these days?
Having been wrong about the war is forgivable. A lot of people were.
Still being not just wrong but so viciously so reveals a decisive lack of self-awareness.
Nothing against your friend, Mr. Dreher. I'm sure he's a great dinner companion.
"Most of us don't like war but if we left now we'd be like the neighbor kid who comes over to your house, trashes your room, and then leaves you to clean up the mess."
Except that *we* didn't do anything to Iraq. It was the national government of the U.S.
I believe that the Bush strategy forced them to miss an golden opportunity: when the Sunnis announced their boycott of the elections, Bush should have publicly told them the simple truth: if you think you have the luxury of playing around, then just wait until a few days after the US pulls out and watch your people being massacred by revenge-minded Shiites. You had it good for decades as Hussein's cronies. You are being offered a proportional role in a pluralistic government. Don't for a moment think you can regain past glory by playing a political game that you have no chance of winning.
The thing about the bloodbath gloom and doom sayers makes me laugh derisively while crying: WTF is happening there right now, and why is that "better"?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.