I can't come up with a catchy name for a post about Iraq
The majority of people in the United States agrees with me when I say that Iraq is not going well. I believe that polls support that they would also agree when I say it was a mistake to go over there in the first place (and if anyone cares, yes, that's been my position all along).
However, we did go. Those that led us there should be held accountable, and to a certain extent the latest election did just that. We should not simply whitewash the decision to go as a "that's in the past, let's focus on the now" with regards to holding those accountable for the apparent misrepresentation of the situation and the horrible assumptions that led us there.
That said...
I am wary and nervous about the Dems making wholesale withdrawal the centerpoint to their policy toward Iraq. I do believe we need to change course, a scaled drawback and more focused role is important, I think. I say I think because I'm not a military expert nor have I been there to see what's going on. I think Fareed Zachariah's recent article in Newsweek offered an interesting approach; cut troop levels overall, knowing that bad things will happen (i.e. more inter-faction violence erupting) but using that as a way to get the Iraqi government more accountable for it and focus on imbedding more troops with Iraq army divisions while withdrawing to 5 or 6 superbases from which we can try and hold back wholesale mayhem and/or genocide (that's a rough paraphrase of a 4 page proposal, apologies if I mangles it).
But my point is this - I agree that it was a mistake to go there. It has cost thousands of U.S. lives, tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, has destabalized the region and has hamstrung our ability to respond to diplomatic threats (Iran's nukes) as well as provide support for critically needed international interventionist missions (Darfur). But that said, we ARE there. When our country made the decision to go, we all, everyone of us even if we didn't vote for the people who did it, incurred a responsibility not to simply let it devolve into wholesale genocide. Which I believe will happen if we take the approach of withdrawing all troops in the relatively immediate future.
Perhaps I misunderstand the position of Pelosi and Murtha, but it seems that they are moving toward a much more fast withdrawal kind of program, a "what's the best way for us to cut our losses and get the hell out of dodge" kind of approach. Which I appreciate, but I'm really wary of us setting up the Sunnis to be wiped out by the Shiites.
I don't know, I don't have any answers and I'm sick of the whole mess. We can't stay the course of a massive interventionist role with hopes that someday the violence will go "poof." We can't allow the current Iraqi government to have it both ways, uring us to stay privately so they can continue using our military might as a shield while killing us publicly and tacitly operating militias bent on consolidating power through eradication of enemies. At the same time, we can't simply say, ok, we're gone, because I think that leads to a swift and massive extermination of the minority Sunnis under the guise of anti-insurgency. Will anti-war activists who are also advocating intervention in Darfur (which I support, by the by) raise the flag of intervention for that possible genocide? I honestly don't know.
So I'm wary of the Dems, or rather the Pelosi and Murtha bloc, staking a position of "get out now," which honestly in my mind is only slightly less myopic and U.S. centric that the administration's plan of "stay massively involved, keep shooting people and hope for the best." I realize it's alot easier politically to say "get out of Iraq" than say "let's create a reasoned policy that is responsive to the massive complexity of the challenge at hand." But that doesn't make it the best course to follow.
Yes, the election was largely won on the "Iraq is a shitstorm" vibe. But as bad as it was to pander to the jingoistic and militaristic aspects of the American public to justify the war, is it not at least somewhat as bad to pander to the "I'm horrified at the war, please make it go away" aspects of the American majority now if it means worse harms to the region we have already inflicted so much damage on?
Again, no answers, just worried that most of those in power are worried about a political win, not a win for the folks in Iraq, whatever nationality they may be.
However, we did go. Those that led us there should be held accountable, and to a certain extent the latest election did just that. We should not simply whitewash the decision to go as a "that's in the past, let's focus on the now" with regards to holding those accountable for the apparent misrepresentation of the situation and the horrible assumptions that led us there.
That said...
I am wary and nervous about the Dems making wholesale withdrawal the centerpoint to their policy toward Iraq. I do believe we need to change course, a scaled drawback and more focused role is important, I think. I say I think because I'm not a military expert nor have I been there to see what's going on. I think Fareed Zachariah's recent article in Newsweek offered an interesting approach; cut troop levels overall, knowing that bad things will happen (i.e. more inter-faction violence erupting) but using that as a way to get the Iraqi government more accountable for it and focus on imbedding more troops with Iraq army divisions while withdrawing to 5 or 6 superbases from which we can try and hold back wholesale mayhem and/or genocide (that's a rough paraphrase of a 4 page proposal, apologies if I mangles it).
But my point is this - I agree that it was a mistake to go there. It has cost thousands of U.S. lives, tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, has destabalized the region and has hamstrung our ability to respond to diplomatic threats (Iran's nukes) as well as provide support for critically needed international interventionist missions (Darfur). But that said, we ARE there. When our country made the decision to go, we all, everyone of us even if we didn't vote for the people who did it, incurred a responsibility not to simply let it devolve into wholesale genocide. Which I believe will happen if we take the approach of withdrawing all troops in the relatively immediate future.
Perhaps I misunderstand the position of Pelosi and Murtha, but it seems that they are moving toward a much more fast withdrawal kind of program, a "what's the best way for us to cut our losses and get the hell out of dodge" kind of approach. Which I appreciate, but I'm really wary of us setting up the Sunnis to be wiped out by the Shiites.
I don't know, I don't have any answers and I'm sick of the whole mess. We can't stay the course of a massive interventionist role with hopes that someday the violence will go "poof." We can't allow the current Iraqi government to have it both ways, uring us to stay privately so they can continue using our military might as a shield while killing us publicly and tacitly operating militias bent on consolidating power through eradication of enemies. At the same time, we can't simply say, ok, we're gone, because I think that leads to a swift and massive extermination of the minority Sunnis under the guise of anti-insurgency. Will anti-war activists who are also advocating intervention in Darfur (which I support, by the by) raise the flag of intervention for that possible genocide? I honestly don't know.
So I'm wary of the Dems, or rather the Pelosi and Murtha bloc, staking a position of "get out now," which honestly in my mind is only slightly less myopic and U.S. centric that the administration's plan of "stay massively involved, keep shooting people and hope for the best." I realize it's alot easier politically to say "get out of Iraq" than say "let's create a reasoned policy that is responsive to the massive complexity of the challenge at hand." But that doesn't make it the best course to follow.
Yes, the election was largely won on the "Iraq is a shitstorm" vibe. But as bad as it was to pander to the jingoistic and militaristic aspects of the American public to justify the war, is it not at least somewhat as bad to pander to the "I'm horrified at the war, please make it go away" aspects of the American majority now if it means worse harms to the region we have already inflicted so much damage on?
Again, no answers, just worried that most of those in power are worried about a political win, not a win for the folks in Iraq, whatever nationality they may be.
posted by cuznate at 3:15 PM
3 Comments:
I'm still trying to think of something to add to this...
I'm interested to know what Iraqis who are not part of the problem want to happen. Not everyone there is participating in the violence. What do those Iraqis have to say?
I am sure there are some Iraqi civil society groups -- even if less formal than NGOs -- that would have some helpful suggestions. (I've never heard of a country where there were zero civil society groups, including in places where such groups were illegal. Even Afghanistan had them, albeit secretly, throughout the Taliban regime.)
I just don't understand why the only voices I am hearing on this topic come from the US government, western political commentators, the Iraqi government (such as it is), and the other perpetrators of violence.
anon - very good point. there are a few things out there that get at what you're asking. there's a documentary that follow a group of al jazeera journalists through the first stages of the conflict that's pretty interesting. not exactly what you're talking about, but interesting nonetheless. and i've read a couple editorial style articles from iraqi academics, doctors and other fairly neutral iraqi folks. but it's tough to find, and what is out there are more antecdotal "this is my view" kinds of things, which are interesting but not real policy analysis.
i'm not helping you answer your question, but your point is dead on. i am similarly frustrated in that everything that's readily available seems to be some version of a western oriented pundit.
Post a Comment
<< Home