Letters to the Editor
-
Some hard stuff along with the easy stuff
Howard Dean and his branch of the Democratic Party call for bringing our troops home. I believe they're right in believing that the U.S. occupation is fueling the insurgency and that the insurgency will be much weaker once our troops are out. But I hope the liberal Democrats can live with some hard possibilities of what will follow in Iraq: a Muslim theocracy in the Arab areas of Iraq with no protections for women or minorities, and an independent, secular Kurdistan that out of self-interest begs the U.S. to maintain bases there, to protect it from Arab Iraq and possibly Turkey. Check out the December 2005 article by Nir Rosen in The Atlantic.
-
What happened to the 'Pottery Barn' principle?
I remember a lot of discussion in the months before the invasion of Iraq of the 'Pottery Barn' principle- summarised as 'You broke it, you bought it.' Well, Iraq's certainly broken, so who's going to pay the bill?
I'd be all for immediate withdrawal of occupying troops, asap, if it didn't also mean that the invading forces, the USA, Britain and Australia, will certainly abandon their already paltry endeavors to pay for Iraq's reconstruction.
It shouldn't be that way, of course, but does anyone really believe that withdrawing the troops doesn't also mean the financial abandonment of Iraq? Maybe it's still better for Iraq if the troops leave. Maybe Iraqi civilians will stop dying at such an appalling rate, and some level of security can be acheived. Maybe after a few decades they'll be able to attain Vietnam's dizzying heights of economic and social success (that's irony, for all you hawks out there).
But don't expect the Iraqis to be grateful. Don't add insult to injury.
-
What does success look like?
All we're arguing about is how quickly to withdraw how many troops while pretending that a) the insurgents won't notice and b) it will do any good to stay there.
But no one can describe what 'victory' or 'success' looks like, or how we would recognize it if we got there. In other words the lack of any cogent withdraw plan from the administration is nothing more than a totem for their utter lack of any plan whatsoever on anything having to do with Iraq. And our loyal opposition in Congress doesn't seem to posit anything much radically different. 20,000 today, 80,000 next year, keep troops on the periphery (what periphery by the way? Isn't the periphery a bunch of Arab states that aren't that fond of us anyway? And what on earth does a brigade sized force think it can do against an entire country?). All we're doing is chattering about who's numbers are perfect.
However as long as we are unable or unwilling to describe the general outlines, the shape and size of what success looks like, however flawed, it's all largely a waste of time and rhetoric, isn't it? The administration is utterly stubborn. We understand that. There is no amount of hard reality that'll shake them from their delusion that we can turn Iraq into an upper middle class gated golf community in the sands. But the Democrats don't want to appear 'soft' on.......well just soft. The 'on' part we're not too sure of. Maybe it's terrorism or insurgents or Shias or Mullahocracies or something else. Take your pick. In either case though they too don't have a credible statement of realistic goals for Iraq. Is it 'democracy', is it a 'non theocratic state', is it minority and womens's rights? Maybe, could be who knows....or not. So let's just keep slightly fewer troops there than the administration wants long enough to stall on making those choices.
What if it doesn't matter though? What if the goal for us in Iraq is to simply leave, toss the keys over our shoulders and wish them well? We're prodded all the time that 'It would be worse if we leave..'
Worse? Worse that what? Last week a few hundred people were blown up. The infrastructure is a shambles, corruption is rife and Iraq is looking like a Sub Saharan African disaster country. Nearly half a trillion dollars down this rathole and the best we can say is "It could be worse"?
But "Not Worse" isn't a goal let alone a strategy. This is why Democratic arguments about sly differences in the troop levels are somewhat disingenuous. They don't matter. They won't change the outcome, the outcome NO ONE can describe. And they will contine to exploit the American troops who are stuck there with nearly the same level of cynicism as the administration.
The answer is clear. Leave now, leave quickly and whatever happens in, on, around, near, over or to Iraq very rapidly becomes their problem to solve. Let them define success.
-
Why not let Iraq vote on it?
Here's my simple solution ...
The Iraqi people should have a vote on whether the US military leaves within 100 days or stays another year. A straight up popular vote done by the people, not their represenatives.
While I sympathize with the human toll this war has taken on our country, we must remember -- we started this and the "Pottery Barn" rule is in effect. If the Iraqi people want us to stay then we have the obligation to stay and try to fix what they want fixed. Leaving simply because it's best for us, with no regards to the Iraqi people, is as misguided as starting this war with no regards to the Iraqi people.
However, if they vote for the US military to leave then it's best that would leave anyway. Winning this war without popular support will never happen. Furthermore, if they vote to have us leave, and we do leave, it at least shows to the world that we truly do believe in the most basic principle of democracy. It's the choice of the Iraqi people -- not ours.
My only real worry about this plan is if the Iraqi people voted us to stay with a close margin -- 51% to 49%. Then we would have to stay, but would have half the country wanting us to leave.
-
Yikes - proofreading, please
If you're going to quote Seymour, you need to get his name right: Hersh, not Hirsh. No need to actually publish this, I'm not looking to burn you guys publicly.