The Question of Iraq - What Now?
Started: Saturday, April 10, 2004 18:29
Finished: Saturday, April 10, 2004 19:38
Iraq is now in a state of uproar. While it is easy to dwell on the argument that this entire endeavor was a mistake from the beginning, merely being able to say "I told you so" is a pretty hollow and unsatisfying riff, given the casualties happening on both sides. What we need to do now is move on and address the question of where do we go from here?
Ever since the "liberation" took place, I have maintained that now that the United States has gotten itself involved, we need to stick it out. Though it would be preferable to have more international assistance from other UN countries, it is understandable that they would not be eager to help clean up a mess made with wanton disregard for the voices of the rest of the world. Now that we are there, we should stay there to prevent the country from falling into chaos and civil war.
Now, I find myself re-evaluating the sanity of this position. Suddenly, it appears that the Sunni and Shia have formed a temporary de facto alliance with one another. Their common enemy is the foreign occupier. The United States now finds that its primary function has changed from preventing violent clashes between clans, to quelling popular opposition against the newly imposed regime.
We overthrew the big bad monster of Saddam Hussein. In the wake of the crumbled infrastructure, we maintained some semblence of order. Leaving aside deceptions and mishandling by the administration, there was at least some merit in each of these operations. But what is the merit now?
Is our new mission, as some might suggest, to beat the Iraqi opposition into a bloody pulp until they learn to love their newfound freedom? Should we pull the ground troops out, nuke a few cities, and after enough of the population has been exterminated so as to render the remainder insignificant, then declare victory and sign a treaty with flies buzzing around the oil wells?
Ok, so I jumped into facetious mode for a moment there, but sometimes the absurdity to which the pro-war contingent is willing to stretch its arguments astounds me.
Seriously, what is the best course of action now? If the United States suddenly decides to jump up and withdraw, it's a good bet that the Sunni and Shia wouldn't take long to forget their short-lived pact, and infighting would break out amongst followers of various clerics, warlords, and other charismatic figures. (Honestly, I'm kind of talking out of my ass here, but I think I'm making reasonable guesses. Someone in the thick of it like Salam Pax or Raed would be in a much better position to assess these matters than I.)
I would also suspect the very real possibility that the surrounding neighbors would make land grabs, and try to annex what they could. Turkey has already had its eyes on the northern territory, much to the dismay of the Kurds (the one group that, as I understand it, is still strongly in favor of a continued U.S. presence). Would the rest of the country be split up between a newly expanded Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria?
Would such an alternative be superior to the ever more bloody clashes between the Empire and the Rebel Alliance?
I don't know anymore. My opinion doesn't make a shred of difference in national policy decisions anyway. Still, I find it interesting to think about these things. What would I do if I were somehow suddenly thrust into the President's position? What would you do?
by bouncing (2004-04-12 08:17)
There is no easy way out now. If we withdraw, Iraq will almost certainly fall into civil war, which may last for years. Following that, one or two nations would be ruled by dictators what would make us wish Saddam was still in power. They will most certainly have weapons of mass destruction programs, and you can be sure they won't let inspectors in either.
Lately I've been reading up on the Israel-Lebanon war. In 1982, Israwel invaded Lebanon to destroy terrorist organizations working with the Lebanese government to overthrow Israel. These real terrorists should not be confused with Bush's fake terrorists, as Iraq has not been a state sponsor of terror for some time. Until now.
At first, the Israelis were warmly greeted by the Lebanese people who had been living under a repressive totalitarian regime for decades. But before long, as Israel failed to stabilize Lebanon and blood-thursty military leaders like Ariel Sharon bended the rules, even committing atrocities to quell the radical groups, the radical groups become mainstream and Hezbollah was born. Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon after casualties mounted and the army couldn't figure out who to fight, Hezbollah is one of the most powerful and well-funded groups calling for the destruction of Isreal and genocide against its people.
How does this relate to us? Let's learn from Isreal's mistakes. If we withdraw, Iraq will become exactly what President Bush said it was when he lied before Congress and America when calling for war. If we stay, the same outcome is likely. What many retired generals and outside experts have been saying is, the United States needs more troops and needs the support of the Iraqi people.
To get more troops, we'd either have to withdraw from other regions we've been squatting at for decades, we'd have to reinstitute the draft, or we'd have to get other nations to contribute. None of the above are very appealing, and I know if I were drafted to fight in Bush's war, I wouldn't go. If I were the leader of another nation, I would not contribute a single soldier to Bush's war, not while Bush is in office.
John Kerry keeps calling for more international support. Would Lebanon or Vietnam have worked out better if the UN was involved? I doubt that very much. But never the less, I think that's our only option. A formal apology to the world couldn't help in making that a reality. To gain the support of the Iraqi people, we should stop making false promises. From interviews with people in Iraq, you gather that they expected maricles from USA. So did the American people. Why? Again, because Dubya lied about what was and wasn't possible.
Ultimately, there may be no good solution. That is why some of us say, bitterly, "we told you so."