Letters to the Editor
-
Why we need to stay....
The main reason we are maintaining a military force in Iraq is not to fight terrorism, although thanks to the stupidity of the Bush administration's policies, that's now a strong secondary reason.
By toppling Hussein, we created a power vacuum and filled it with a fledgling democratic government. Unfortunately, fledgling democracies are fragile arrangements and usually have to be nursed and supported for at least a generation or two in order to survive. When they replace a dictatorship, their hold on power is even more tenuous.
Building trust in a new form of government takes time. It's not easy for a population to get used to the move from a top-down arrangement where a single person wielded power, to a democracy where everyone has some interest and influence over policy. Add in corruption, social inertia and the difficulties inherent to enforcing freedom and civil liberties, and a successful transition becomes nearly impossible. And that's without a civil war!
4 more years? Not likely. Without the insurgent movement, the Iraqis would need at least a generation before the experience of living in a democracy becomes culturally embedded. That's what would be required for them to trust their new government. The current insurgency makes that process impossible. For now, despite our monumental screw-ups, American military presence is keeping Iraq from imploding into a full-out civil war, the end result of which would either be a secular dictatorship or theocracy.
-
Order Coulda Shoulda Have Been Placed Above Idealism
The US has created a power vacuum in Iraq. A complete lack of order has left the country completely factionalized, ungovernable, overrun by militias, criminal bands, extremists.
And there is no end in sight.
Going back to the situation prior to the second US invasion, it is safe to say that Sadaam Hussein would have remained a bee in our bonnet, provoking us, stubbornly refusing to bend to our will - as he had been for the entire decade following the original Iraq war. If the US/UN did not begin to disengage from the area of its own volition and without conditions on the Iraqi regime, it would have faced continued provokation and would, sooner or later, have been forced to act.
It might have made sense to walk away completely, to seek a face-saving way out in spite of Sadam Hussein's defiance. The way that the first Iraq war was ended, allowing Hussein so much wiggle room to defy the conditions imposed upon him as a condition of Iraq's surrender, was fatally flawed. And it cannot be denied the situation would be better than currently if Hussein had been left in power. There would be order and a lot less Iraqi civilians and US soldiers would be dead.
Assuming that complete unconditional disengagement from the region were rejected, what might a more moderate, less ideological, more intelligent, less arrogant US administration have done?
A legitimate case could have been made for regime change in Iraq through military intervention, due to Iraqi provocations and noncompliance with the original terms of surrender under Hussein. Diplomacy could have been exercised to gain greater buy-in from the international community. A greater understanding the mentality of the native population could have guided the plan for regime change. The Iraqi military structure could have been left in place, minus Sadaam Hussein. A Musharref-style leader could have been installed.
Perhaps this is not a morally palatable solution. It certainly doesn't sound as nice as "liberating" a country, and making it safe for Democracy. It may have been difficult to justify this, especially to the American people. This was certainly the case at the end of the first Iraqi war, when the US, under the UN flag elected to leave Hussein in power. Americans are uncomfortable with such moral "gray areas," but they need to grow up.
How moral is the current situation, where so many civilians are dying every day, with no end in sight?
Unfortunately, the US administration chose to reject diplomacy and consensus-building. They chose to justify their actions by making a flimsy case (not believed then by most and later completely disproven) about the imminent threat to US security posed by Iraq.
Worse still, the ideological zealots in control at the Bush administration chose to insist upon implementing American-style majority-rule democracy in Iraq. They arrogantly assumed that there were no limits to US power to recreate Iraq and the Middle East exactly as we saw fit.
Its clear that the US interests have not been served with this war. We are worse off in every possible way because of this war (except, perhaps, those of us who are Haliburton shareholders). Our soldiers are dying, our debt is increasing, our prestige in the world has been tarnished tremendously and perhaps irreparably. The world is now a more dangerous place as terrorists have a new country in which they can operate freely, because order has broken down.
But we are also morally compromised as a result of this war, Because of this administration's ignorance and arrogance in believing that American values and institutions could be imposed on Iraqi society, because they favored implementing ideology over establishing order, ordinary Iraqi people are suffering tremendously, dying for no day after day, with no end in sight.
Well it is too late now, the US has destroyed everything, and created a quagmire. In the end, all the death and destruction, all the suffering, will have been for nothing. At some point, whether under Democrats or Republicans, whether 10,000 more die, or 100,000, the US will turn its back on the mess it has created and cannot resolve - leaving Iraqis to slaughter each other until a force, like the Taliban, is able to establish control once more.
The US under Bush has behaved so arrogantly and so incompetently. It is unforgivable. Unfortunate, incompetent, and inexcusable.
We will pay for this for years to come.
-
Bush Is Right (Unfortunately)
America cannot just pull out its troops from Iraq without stabilizing that country first. Even those of us on the left, whether we supported the original invasion or not, must acknowledge that we can't walk away from this mess. If it means sending more troops (in the first Iraq war, over 500,000 American troops were involved in that successful conflict) or staying there for four more years, that is the price we have to pay for this mistake.
You can't walk into a china shop, stomp around, allow others to stomp around and then walk out scot-free. You are partially responsible for the damage. Iraq was hell under Saddam Hussein, but it seems that now that we are there and have contributed to its further decline, we have an obligation to stay and do whatever it takes to improve the situation. Iraq should not be allowed to be another Vietnam. Hopefully, this whole experience will deter the US from future avoidable adventures.