A reader keeps pestering me to discuss my own thoughts on the moral responsibilities the US has to Iraq to prevent a civil war, which would surely follow a US withdrawal. I've avoided doing so because I'm trying to sort my own thoughts out, and I can't come to a conclusion that I can fully accept.
I want the US out of Iraq. I don't believe that a civil war is avoidable there. A colleague here at the paper has been taunting me (in a friendly way) about how great the surge has gone, when I had predicted it would fail. My response to this has been, more or less, "The Mahdi Army is just biding its time, waiting for us to leave. Then it will make its move." In other words, that the surge has bought a false peace, because we haven't seen the kind of political and social progress that would have allowed us to consider it a real success.
This week's outbreak of serious violence between Shia factions -- the Mahdi Army on one side, and the SCIRI-aligned Iraqi government on the other -- vindicates this view. This morning I heard an Arab analyst on public radio saying that we're probably going to see bloodletting of the sort we haven't seen since 2004-05.
I believe this is going to happen one way or another, and our continued presence in Iraq only delays the inevitable. Moreover -- and maybe one of you readers has some information that can answer this question -- how are we going to provide the US troops to keep the levels up to 160,000, which is what Petraeus is reportedly going to recommend for the rest of the year? Last year, we heard that the surge would have to rapidly wind down this spring, because the troops simply weren't there.
Are soldiers and their families going to be squeezed yet again, and asked to make even further sacrifices, for this policy?
And what is the end game? We have made it absolutely clear to the Iraqis that they don't have a blank check to delay their reconciliation. Yet ... we're offering them a blank check, are we not?
I think there are no good choices here, that our invasion unleashed forces that will have to play themselves out. Best thing we can do, I think, is to withdraw to enclaves and set up refugee zones, and let the violence play itself out. And offer passports to all Iraqis who helped us, and who would certainly be killed for that after we left. Not a good response, I know. But we cannot keep this status quo up indefinitely. One way or another, the blood of Iraqis will stain our nation. If I thought staying there indefinitely was not only possible, but would fix the problem and redeem our invasion, I would support it. But I just can't see that happening.
If you disagree, please explain the rationale for continuing the occupation at current levels ... and how we're going to get the troops for it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Franklin:
Well, I am in no means a Saint, and am far from it, I just have a great deal of respect for St. Domenic, and the Dominicans, as oppose to the modern Jesuits, but that is a debate for inner Catholic squabbles and not this board. You are correct that those that beforehand, purchased stocks in companies that are benefitting from the War, have made, and are making money. So you are correct that in this war, there is no "shared sacrifice", as was the case say, in WWII, which is a legitimate criticism on your part and one that I am in somewhat agreement with respect to war profiteers, although I still think Captalism, with the necessary regulations such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Banking regulations, etc, is still the best economic model in the world. I think President Bush should have approached this whole war on terror by calling policies that asked for shared sacrifice across the country, but he choose not to.
Regards, and I enjoyed your post and thanks for reading and responding to my previous post.
Here's a thought: making a profit from war is unAmerican.
Although not directly apropos...while in Iraq, it was a bit strange to hear about contractors (not Blackwater guys - I'm talking on-base civilian workers for KBR & the like) getting paid six figures when they rarely (if ever) left the wire. I could only imagine what their employer was raking in.
That being said...while I'm well aware of the gross asymmetry between the war contractor who rakes in millions, and the grunt who gets himself blown up for a (relatively) mere pittance, I'm more inclined to try and limit war-related profits rather than eliminate them entirely. In theory, nationalized war industries could mimic private efficiencies, but in practice, I have my doubts. OTOH, for better or worse, private industry isn't going to produce arms without some promise of profit. A better approach, IMHO, would be to limit war profits (via regulation, taxation, or both) to some reasonable rate of return (as was once done with public utilities). Ditto something like the WWII Truman Commission. I'm not sure how this might be done in practice, however.
OTOH, perhaps KBR wasn't all that profitable:
www.slate.com/id/2140504/
3% operating earnings?!
Not only can we not fix the problem, we may be blocking a solution from emerging. While we are there, no one can come to power in Iraq who does not support us. Those who do support us reliably will tend to rise in the national government, even if they don't have deep popular support. (In fact, it is precisely those groups without firm popular support who will want us most to stay, as they cannot have power without us). If the forces that are most likely to lead to national reconciliation want the U.S. out, then our continuing presence blocks them from rising to power.
This is the classic problem with colonialism and puppet governments.
"St. Domenic, if we leave the Sunnis lose because (1) Iran would not let the Iraqi Shiites win..." me
My apologies for that. I hope it was obvious that I meant that Iran would not let the Iraqi Shiites LOSE in a civil war with Sunnis; Iraq's Shiite militant leader, Muqtada al-Sader, is Iran's proxy in Iraq.
"I was actually advocating the U.S. get out of Iraq, retool the Military to fight Al-Qadea, and those countries that harbor those guys. In other words, get out of Iraq." St. Domenic
My friend, our current, but ever decreasing level of fighting in Iraq is what it is primarily because international al Qaeda has chosen Iraq as its battle ground. They want to test our resolve to prevent more easy 9/11s. bin Laden and his brain trust anticipated, and I believe was counting on, the current political fight in the U.S. to guaranty them a victory, ala Vietnam. But, thanks be to God, we are winning the fight militarily with them in Iraq, which tends to mute the U.S. surrender crowd.
After we destroyed the Taliban and al Qaeda's HQ and training centers in Afghanistan, Iraq was chosen by al Qaeda as the testing place for our will to fight them because they saw how we were walking on egg shells instead of doing what we are doing now, i.e., the surge. So when you say we should get out of Iraq so that we can fight al Qaeda in "countries that harbor those guys", exactly which countries do you suggest we invade next? If we can't beat them in Iraq, now, then the fight is over.
"2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life." St. Domenic
That's not what the fifth commandment forbids; it forbids murder--killing of the innocent, unnecessary killing, etc. The fifth commandment does not preclude war--which is the intentional destruction of human life.
"Is unbridled capitalism the engine best suited to support the waging of war?" Franklin
Neither unbridled capitalism nor anything like it exists here. If we set up some kind of bureaucratic mechanism to regulate what profit levels private contractors are allowed to realize, it would cost taxpayers more than it does now and it wouldn't work anyway. Contracts are modified constantly, by both sides, to meet unforeseen circumstances. And wouldn't it have to cut both ways--wouldn't such new bureaucracy have to guaranty a certain profit level if contractors bid too low and got into red ink? And who gets to decide what a proper rate of return should be on the ten thousand different products under a hundred different circumstances? Utility companies and insurance companies are constantly arguing proper rates of return before Public Utility Commissions (special courts) and they only sell one product and have decades of precedent to go by. We don't want that for a vastly more complicated situation.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke.
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.