My opinionated relatives frequently share their opinions with me, and I wanted some feedback. I’m the kind of person politicians love because when I hear an opinion, I generally think “Oh, okay!” and only analyze it later. (Actually, maybe they hate me because I do analyze it later?) But initially I agree when things sound good.
Here’s the opinion shared by one of my relatives: at this point, there’s no good way to exit Iraq. There are too many factions, and we understood too little about the area before we went in. That some of the individuals involved will only be “shocked and awed” by massive brutality, and that we aren’t prepared as a nation to give it to them. (Nor should we be.)
Therefore, my relative concluded, stepping up our military presence won’t help unless we do it massively. And withdrawing on a sliding scale will only prolong the fighting and the number of deaths.
My relative stated flatly that the only thing to do was immediately withdraw. In total. Everyone, out of the pool. Then leave the people who remain there to fight it out amongst themselves, since they’re going to do that regardless of whether we’re there and when we leave and on what timescale..
His assertion was that remaining, sending more troops, or gradually scaling back will prolong our involvement by five years. But pulling out immediately will cause horrible upheaval and bloodshed that will last only a brief while.
I know everyone has an opinion about Iraq, but this was the first time I’d heard that take. And it made sense as he explained it, but less so now. Because I guess in my heart of hearts, I and the rest of the United States want there to be a way out that involves no one dying, no one suffering, and sudden enlightenment to come to all the Middle East where they realize their centuries-old differences can be resolved som as-yet-unknown better, peaceful way. Said in a stunned, enlightened voice, “This is a government that everybody can love!”
(cue singing birds, blooming flowers, and bright sunshine)
And my relative’s assertion was, bluntly, that ain’t gonna happen.
I’m glad I don’t make policy on this one. That’s all.
Have you seen Charlie Wilson’s War? Very definitely worth seeing.
Should we be at war in that area? I’m not sure. I don’t know if anyone is left with whom we should be at war, especially a violent war.
Should we be there? Yes. We should be helping the rightful rulers and the little guys. We should be digging wells and building schools and teaching midwives and clearing minefields. We should be teaching them how to make fishing rods and fish. So many of their old teachers are no longer available and the physical infrastructure destroyed. The cultural infrastructure has also been destroyed, but we cannot rebuild it in our image; we have to support their rebuilding; we have to make sure the population rebuilds it and that it supports peace and mutual support, not that the selfish rulers or war-mongers rebuild it.
Should we have an armed presence there? Yes. We should protect the people doing all the above. We should give them a safe place in which to rebuild their cultural infrastructure. This may include very strong walls that kick back, although the walls should be temporary, otherwise they will become part of the cultural infrastructure.
We also have to admit we can’t save everyone, and we can’t babysit them forever. I would like to have the resources to help for an entire generation. It will take that long to raise a group able to think of friendship and accommodation and mutual help rather than vengeance and hereditary enemies. Ireland did it. Israel is getting closer. I’m not sure about Turkey/Cyprus.
This whole situation puts me in mind of Ancient Greece. I know, everyone thinks I’m nuts when I say the ancient world is relevant, but people are people, and the emotions that drove citizens in 700 BCE are perfectly effective in driving citizens in 2008 CE.
You need a common goal. When King Philip conquered much of Greece what was the first thing he declared? That he was going to march on Persia. Why? Not because he thought he could take on King Darius. He lacked the brilliance that let his son take such a nearly impossible victory. He did it because that was the only thing that could unite the Greeks under his rule. He directed them to achieve a goal they saw as more important than throwing him out.
Bush knows this. He tried to capitalize on 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in exactly that way. Look at how many times he urged Americans to put party differences aside and focus on defeating the nation’s enemy.
Of course the natural thought is to invade Israel. Think about that for a moment, and you’ll see how, from the solitary goal of uniting Iraq, the entire thing would work. Now the trick is to find something other than starting another war that will have the same results. What that could be? I don’t know. I don’t know enough about Iraqi culture to know what golden bone they would chase.
War on global warming would be the same financial drain, and have better results. War on poverty. War on poor health care. Unfortunately, some people can only get excited about war about territory and power.