|
While it's true that we are inflicting casualties upon those who take the risk of trying to attack our troops, that's unavoidable. Who we're killing when that happens isn't always clear. Much of the time, I'm sure, it's just IRAQIs who were probably in the military before the invasion (and any youth coming of age who are influenced by them). It's unfortunate. On the one hand, any decrease in the number of individuals who engage in violence (even if they are in a real sense, justified in doing so), is probably overall a modest benefit to IRAQ's future. On the other, if it was a possibility, we should avoid engaging such groups. After all, our purpose is merely to keep the country from descending into severe violence -between- IRAQIs, long enough for them to form their own functioning government and security institutions. Then again, certainly a considerable percentage of the time, the groups that engage us have been instigated by someone from outside of IRAQ, whose primary goal is striking back at the U.S.
I suppose that would mean I'm against seeking these groups out and for avoiding conflict where possible. However, when armed groups are engaging in violence (against anyone)--even on a small scale, we should be there to stop them, whatever it takes. Our role should be more as a "police" force rather than some attempt to further conquer the country--though that may be necessary in order to enforce civil order. Ouch, it hurts. It certainly will, both them and us.
We also have to get out of the business of trying to form a puppet government... it is not our place to tell the IRAQIs how they should govern themselves. Of course, if we can build a puppet government that is fair to the various factions and is both capable of successfully preventing violence and intends to do so, then we've succeeded and can leave. The IRAQIs can take that puppet government and convert it to anything they like--and if they have a civil war then, alas... we'd have to make decisions when we come to it. That is, we could conceivably be called to re-occupy or at least send in assistence; we need to keep that country stable. We also have to watch closely--because in contradiction of what I've said thus far, not quite "all" governments are acceptable. What we watch for is IRANIAN influence; if their government is subverted by IRAN, we'll have to decide what to do. If this happens before we leave, we may have to force yet another government change by purging the IRANIAN influence. If we've left, it's less likely that we'd go back, but our national interests are specifically antithetical to IRAN having control over IRAQ. It's not just our interests, it's the Western world's interests.
Yes, we should set a deadline, but it should give them a few years of support. If they decide they really want to try this 'Democracy' thing, it's not easy; one doesn't just suddenly change a culture formed over a thousand years--though I must say they made rather rapid progress, as though it wasn't as foreign a concept as we might have thought. Anyway, the divisions within IRAQ are deep and seriouss--and may indeed be insurmountable. So, in a few years, after giving them a real chance to form their own government, then, and only then can we say we did enough. We've failed the people of IRAQ so far, and their civil war wouldn't have happened but for us. We therefore should indeed suffer (even more than we have) for our stupidity and give them a real chance. Hands off (with the exception that IRANIAN influence will not be tolerated).
In any case, the death toll in IRAQ is by far, is primarily resulting from IRAQI vs IRAQI violence. That's what we must be trying to stop. Yes, it's true that at times previously, we were inflicting the majority of casualties. However, with few exceptions, it's IRAQI factional violence that's making the news. Sure enough too, by being there, we act as targets which, when hit, often involve IRAQI bystanders--but if we weren't there, IRAQIs would simply take our place as targets, and the bysanders will still be there.
So, yes, alas, we will have to continue both defending ourselves and defending IRAQIs. This last sentence was somewhat wrong--it contained the word 'continue'. We must make it our goal to defend both ourselves and IRAQIs instead of defending ourselves and selectively defending a few IRAQIs. The missions are similar. We still need to disarm the country as much as possible, and some IRAQIs won't go along with that. Alas, whatever it takes to give them the time and conditions necessary to decide on a government--up to a cutoff of several years. As I write this, that number of years keeps dwindling in my mind as I consider just how "irreconcilable" the various factions seem to be. Then again, as I consider the consequences of a state of anarchy in IRAQ, I think again.
If you are concerned about the IRAQI people, consider this. The U.S. may well have been involved in the deaths of anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000. That's an awful lot (and why we owe them to give them a chance for peace). However, in an uncontrolled civil war (such as would occur as soon as we left), they could very easily escalate that into the tens of hundreds of thousands (millions). If we let that happen to them knowing that it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't utterly disassembled their whole government (as unfair as it was), can it be said we did the right thing? From here on out, the killing of IRAQIs by U.S. forces will probably continue to decline and it's barely measure in the thousands per year. The day we leave, the casualties will probably exceed that (and potentially by an order of magnitude).
If we do leave, I would suggest--from a purely selfish point of view--that we'd better be prepared to either go back in or enforce an external guarantee of security if only to prevent IRAN from taking over. What's wrong with IRAN... Well, the mainstream press and the Republican side of the aisle is certainly full of dire concerns about IRAN's motives. While they're no doubt exaggerating, just about everything that goes wrong (from our perspective) in the middle east, has IRAN's fingerprints on them. They also intend to cause the U.S. as much harm as possible. Obviously, in this world, every nation feels the need to have nuclear weapons if it wants to have the power to stand up to the more powerful (and nuclear equipped) countries. So IRAN naturally wants nukes. Unfortunately, there is no question at all that, unlike IRAQ, IRAN very much does trade in terrorism and provides terrorist organizations with money and weapons. They have as much as said they will provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups; the U.S. will be a primary target. Like it or not, they cannot be allowed to control half (or more) of the world's remaining reserves of light crude oil, nor can they be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
Alas, if IRAQ fails, we might as well say hello to the new, improved and expanded Western IRAN. Having their hands on the oil supply alone would give IRAN massive power in the world which already hates us thanks to Bush. For favored status on the oil supply list, we'd be facing problems with otherwise unrelated countries. They could destroy our economy as easily as switching the "oil currency" to something else such as the Euro. Now, it's true that the U.S. enjoys an unfair advantage because of the dollar's status as World Reserve Currency and Oil Currency--and perhaps we should lose that status one day, but right now, the Dollar depends on those advantages and given the debt Bush has created, and the loss of industrial capacity in the U.S., the dollar would simply collapse, crashing to become worthless--our economy would be thrown into a deep Depression... our national interst couldn't be more obvious; protect the Dollar. So IRAN is a serious threat--much more serious than it would be under better circumstances, but as Rummie might say, "we have to ____ with the world we've got".
It ain't pretty. Unfortunately, Bush broke it, so now we get to pay for it. We "inherited" a country back in 2003 and promptly broke it apart while also offending and alienating the citizenry. Now many of them 'hate' us and want to push us out. Very strange, I guess they don't like being oppressed... I simply can't believe the enormous stupidity and imperial hubris of this President and his Administration, to have screwed IRAQ so badly that we probably can't even hope to improve relations. Nevertheless, we must try.
I mean, it ought to be apparent. If we care about healthcare, the economy, education and quality of life in the United States, we can't leave IRAQ. Those things are dependent upon an undisturbed flow of oil; and IRAN will disturb it. A functioning IRAQ would even improve the oil situation (which has certainly involved damagine price increases here already). If our moral obligations don't mean anything, then at least recognize that it's in our own interests to preserve IRAQ. We can't let IRAQ fall (at least not as far as it's almost sure to do) which will happen if we decide to leave before we've restored them to some kind of functioning government. It's best for them, it's a debt we owe them, and it's in our own interests to stay--as painful as that will be.
Our basic principle of being "anti-war" is a good one, and if Bush had shared it, we wouldn't be in this debacle. Unfortunately, HE created this mess, and WE have to clean it up. Alas, while violence is to be avoided, there are situations in which it is required. In IRAQ, our goal should be to create a stable government (friendly or unfriendly (but NOT IRANIAN)) and to protect IRAQIs (by preventing a 'civil' war that will be frought with atrocities by our standards) and promote peace. We can't help if we're not there--and they really do need (and deserve) our help, even if they say they don't want it (just as you'd ignore your child's insistence on autonomy if they were in serious need of help).
Disclaimer: Obviously this is a complex question and I'm neither an expert nor privy to all the real information (presuming we even have a good assessment of said 'real' world information). So, what I'm doing here is nothing more than engaging in supposition.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
