The Agony and the Ecstasy (Or, My Thoughts on the Iraq Election)
A Republican friend of mine gave me a rather smug look this week.
"Bet that really bugs you, huh?"
Huh? Bug me? What do you mean?
He shows me an e-mail from Iraq talking about the joyful spirit in the air during Sunday's elections. "That. Bet you're not happy to see something like that."
Now, I was tempted to reply that the attitude was probably none too joyful in Sunni-dominated areas like Tikrit or Fallujah. But I decided to let that one pass. How can one who claims to be liberal, in the classic sense of the word, find displeasure in watching a long-oppressed people take their first step toward freedom?
You can't... not if you really believe in what liberalism is all about. And that's what I told my friend today.
Yes, we loathe Bush and his allies, and the reckless manner in which he plunged us into war. But what he's done is not the fault of the Iraqi people. And we shouldn't wish ill on them to punish the Shrub.
Still, the reaction of the pro-war right is troublesome... sheer, unadulterated gloating. I'm sure you've seen the many permutations of this over the last four days -- the argument that the success of the Iraqi elections marks a complete and utter vindication of Bush and the Iraq War.
That's bullshit -- and it's bullshit of a particularly dangerous streak. If you buy that one, then logically you would support Bush if he chose to take an identical course of action in the future... in, say, Iran. Or North Korea. Or Cuba. etc.
Yes, good has finally emerged from a very dark and troubling situation. That's how life works -- it's rarely as black-and-white as the Bushies see it. But the emergence of that good does not change the fact that Bush launched a pre-emptive invasion on a badly exaggerated casus belli that later proved completely false; that in launching said invasion unilaterally, the United States badly undermined international law; that tens of thousands of lives have been lost in a war still far from conclusion; that US personnel have tortured and abused detainees captured in this war and the war in Afghanistan, as a matter of official policy in some cases; that in pursuing the elective war in Iraq, the US has badly compromised its ability to prosecute the war on al Qaeda, to say nothing of meeting its treaty obligations; and that the senior leadership of the United States (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) has apparently learned nothing from these mistakes, or at least will not admit so publicly.
Sunday's election does not provide absolution for these sins. And it does not provide justification for the White House's apparent strategy of war without foreseeable end in Iraq.
Ted Kennedy's calls for a rapid pullout notwithstanding, the Democratic leadership is not talking about cutting and running in Iraq. Here's what Nancy Pelosi said tonight...
We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos. We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq.
Read this again. Do you see any mention of immediate pullout? Cutting and running with our tail between our legs? "Artificial timelines"?
No. You see the Democratic Party calling on Bush to simply tell us what our goals are in Iraq... and how the hell we're going to get out of a place we do not belong as soon as is practicable.
Now, Bush alluded to this in the State of the Union tonight. But let's just say it might be a little difficult to meet his goals...
We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.
These are not exactly the kinds of goals that can be met in the next 12 months. Even five or 10 years might be pushing it, despite Bush's talk of gradually turning over the fighting to Iraqis tonight.
But it's fairly apparent that the war hawks really don't have a whole lot of interest in bringing this war to an end any time soon. Bush himself explained why tonight...
(Iraq) is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.
This is the "flypaper theory" much beloved by neocons, war hawks and Bushies -- the theory that jihadists who would be waging a terrorist campaign in the United States are instead being sucked into a guerrilla war in Iraq, where they can be slaughtered by the bushel.
The mission of the United States military is to help would-be enemy suicide attackers meet their maker in the largest numbers possible. And if this can be done in Tikrit and Samarra rather than in New York and New Jersey, so much the better. [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb. 1]
In fact, were America actually to heed the siren's call ... and retreat from the Iraqi front in that war, it would simply assure that we will be fighting these enemies far closer to home and, indeed, in all likelihood here. [Syndicated columnist Frank Gaffney, Jr., Jan. 31]
Gaffney eloquently explains why the Bushies have no interest in a quick end to this war. If you really do believe in the flypaper theory, then you have no interest in pulling out of an opportunity to slaughter the world's jihadists.
Now, I happen to believe this theory is a load of crap. You see, as ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer explained in Imperial Hubris, most of al Qaeda's trainees are foot soldiers -- capable of serving as cannon fodder in guerrilla wars in Kosovo, Chechnya and Iraq, but hardly capable of carrying out a complex terrorist plot in a Western country. Such plots are left to al Qaeda's "special forces," if you will. There are far fewer of these characters out there ... and they certainly aren't going to be used as cannon fodder fighting US Marines in Fallujah.
But I digress. Even if it is absolutely true, it is an incredibly crappy thing to do.
The same people who repeatedly praise the courage of the Iraqi citizenry, and are today professing such deep concern about their liberty and well-being, see absolutely nothing wrong with turning Iraqi neighborhoods into a bloodbath to serve US interests in the "war on terror." It's NIMBYism on an international scale, not unlike dumping your trash in your neighbor's yard because you don't want to deal with it. Why the hell is it appropriate for us to shove the residents of Tikrit and Samarra in front of a freight train to save our own asses? Are their lives of less value than our own?
If we're in Iraq to stabilize the country and to assist the Iraqi government in building up an army and police force with which to defend itself, that's one thing. As Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday, it would be completely inappropriate to abandon the Iraqis to the chaos we helped create without giving them a fighting chance to defend themselves.
But if we're talking about stirring up the shit in Iraq to suck in jihadists into a war without end, well, that shows you don't really give a rat's ass about the Iraqis at all, beyond the political cover they provided you on Sunday by voting.
Yes, the Iraqi people showed some remarkable courage on Sunday. Perhaps it's time we showed a little courage ourselves ... and stopped shoving them into a meat-grinder for our own interests.
"Bet that really bugs you, huh?"
Huh? Bug me? What do you mean?
He shows me an e-mail from Iraq talking about the joyful spirit in the air during Sunday's elections. "That. Bet you're not happy to see something like that."
Now, I was tempted to reply that the attitude was probably none too joyful in Sunni-dominated areas like Tikrit or Fallujah. But I decided to let that one pass. How can one who claims to be liberal, in the classic sense of the word, find displeasure in watching a long-oppressed people take their first step toward freedom?
You can't... not if you really believe in what liberalism is all about. And that's what I told my friend today.
Yes, we loathe Bush and his allies, and the reckless manner in which he plunged us into war. But what he's done is not the fault of the Iraqi people. And we shouldn't wish ill on them to punish the Shrub.
Still, the reaction of the pro-war right is troublesome... sheer, unadulterated gloating. I'm sure you've seen the many permutations of this over the last four days -- the argument that the success of the Iraqi elections marks a complete and utter vindication of Bush and the Iraq War.
That's bullshit -- and it's bullshit of a particularly dangerous streak. If you buy that one, then logically you would support Bush if he chose to take an identical course of action in the future... in, say, Iran. Or North Korea. Or Cuba. etc.
Yes, good has finally emerged from a very dark and troubling situation. That's how life works -- it's rarely as black-and-white as the Bushies see it. But the emergence of that good does not change the fact that Bush launched a pre-emptive invasion on a badly exaggerated casus belli that later proved completely false; that in launching said invasion unilaterally, the United States badly undermined international law; that tens of thousands of lives have been lost in a war still far from conclusion; that US personnel have tortured and abused detainees captured in this war and the war in Afghanistan, as a matter of official policy in some cases; that in pursuing the elective war in Iraq, the US has badly compromised its ability to prosecute the war on al Qaeda, to say nothing of meeting its treaty obligations; and that the senior leadership of the United States (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) has apparently learned nothing from these mistakes, or at least will not admit so publicly.
Sunday's election does not provide absolution for these sins. And it does not provide justification for the White House's apparent strategy of war without foreseeable end in Iraq.
Ted Kennedy's calls for a rapid pullout notwithstanding, the Democratic leadership is not talking about cutting and running in Iraq. Here's what Nancy Pelosi said tonight...
We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos. We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq.
Read this again. Do you see any mention of immediate pullout? Cutting and running with our tail between our legs? "Artificial timelines"?
No. You see the Democratic Party calling on Bush to simply tell us what our goals are in Iraq... and how the hell we're going to get out of a place we do not belong as soon as is practicable.
Now, Bush alluded to this in the State of the Union tonight. But let's just say it might be a little difficult to meet his goals...
We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.
These are not exactly the kinds of goals that can be met in the next 12 months. Even five or 10 years might be pushing it, despite Bush's talk of gradually turning over the fighting to Iraqis tonight.
But it's fairly apparent that the war hawks really don't have a whole lot of interest in bringing this war to an end any time soon. Bush himself explained why tonight...
(Iraq) is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.
This is the "flypaper theory" much beloved by neocons, war hawks and Bushies -- the theory that jihadists who would be waging a terrorist campaign in the United States are instead being sucked into a guerrilla war in Iraq, where they can be slaughtered by the bushel.
The mission of the United States military is to help would-be enemy suicide attackers meet their maker in the largest numbers possible. And if this can be done in Tikrit and Samarra rather than in New York and New Jersey, so much the better. [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb. 1]
In fact, were America actually to heed the siren's call ... and retreat from the Iraqi front in that war, it would simply assure that we will be fighting these enemies far closer to home and, indeed, in all likelihood here. [Syndicated columnist Frank Gaffney, Jr., Jan. 31]
Gaffney eloquently explains why the Bushies have no interest in a quick end to this war. If you really do believe in the flypaper theory, then you have no interest in pulling out of an opportunity to slaughter the world's jihadists.
Now, I happen to believe this theory is a load of crap. You see, as ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer explained in Imperial Hubris, most of al Qaeda's trainees are foot soldiers -- capable of serving as cannon fodder in guerrilla wars in Kosovo, Chechnya and Iraq, but hardly capable of carrying out a complex terrorist plot in a Western country. Such plots are left to al Qaeda's "special forces," if you will. There are far fewer of these characters out there ... and they certainly aren't going to be used as cannon fodder fighting US Marines in Fallujah.
But I digress. Even if it is absolutely true, it is an incredibly crappy thing to do.
The same people who repeatedly praise the courage of the Iraqi citizenry, and are today professing such deep concern about their liberty and well-being, see absolutely nothing wrong with turning Iraqi neighborhoods into a bloodbath to serve US interests in the "war on terror." It's NIMBYism on an international scale, not unlike dumping your trash in your neighbor's yard because you don't want to deal with it. Why the hell is it appropriate for us to shove the residents of Tikrit and Samarra in front of a freight train to save our own asses? Are their lives of less value than our own?
If we're in Iraq to stabilize the country and to assist the Iraqi government in building up an army and police force with which to defend itself, that's one thing. As Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday, it would be completely inappropriate to abandon the Iraqis to the chaos we helped create without giving them a fighting chance to defend themselves.
But if we're talking about stirring up the shit in Iraq to suck in jihadists into a war without end, well, that shows you don't really give a rat's ass about the Iraqis at all, beyond the political cover they provided you on Sunday by voting.
Yes, the Iraqi people showed some remarkable courage on Sunday. Perhaps it's time we showed a little courage ourselves ... and stopped shoving them into a meat-grinder for our own interests.
posted by The Red State Rebel | 9:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home