One of my concerns with the Democratic takeover next month is that they would ignore this problem or, worse, continue to use it as a club with which to beat Bush's miniscule brains in politically. Reid's alleged support of a troop "surge" seems to indicate that my fears will be realized.
Domer's post is an attempt for to bring those of us on the left into the spotlight and pose "new ideas" to the situation in Iraq. That's understandable and honorable. The Left should not shrink away from this call. Towards that aim, let me then try to hamfistedly offer my thoughts and suggestions.
His question:
...what is the vision of Democrats about the effects of a gradual withdrawal, what will that mean to Iraq as a functional polity, how that will affect the volatile politics of the region, and beyond that, the pressing conflict with violent, radical Islamists, and, of course, the more "abstract" standing of the US in the world so far as our ability to favorably influence events to our values and interests?Disclaimer: I have no idea what the vision of the Democrats as a whole or a party have in mind on these particular points. My plan here is to point out my own personal view of the situation and to answer Domer's question on my own behalf. His question is complex and many-faceted so my posted responce will be long and involved but let me say, it will be an honest appraisal of what I think the situation is and how it should be handled and it will be offered with the utmost sincerity, respect and seriousness.
Past is PrologueThough painful, the problem can not be solved by only looking at the current situation and finding resolution without looking back. My only goal here is to find information, not blame. Finding blame and the like can easily be done in another post and has been many times. The only information we need from looking back is "what was our intent in invading Iraq?" Briefly, let's take a look at the reasons and see if those goals have been accomplished.
Here are three generalized goals for invading Iraq:
- Saddam Hussein's removal (he had wmd, he was a madman, he killed thousands, he supported terrorism, he oppressed his people)
A free and democratic Iraq (better relations with America, no Saddam, stabilized middle east, greater opportunities for women, democracy is good)
America's safety (no longer worried about Saddam and his wmd/programs/support of terrorists or supplying them with nuclear bombs)
Agree or disagree with the validity of these reasons, the statement of these reasons, the honor in these reasons, these, for the most part, are the basic reasons given or have come to be accepted as the reasons we invaded Iraq. Others could be added, I suppose, but for the sake of brevity, I will settle on these three for now.
#1. Hussein's removal is a no-brainer. He's gone. That's a done deal. He won't be supporting any more terrorists or killing any more of Iraqi citizens or generally being a jerkoff in all ways. He's done. Goal accomplished.
We'll come back to #2.
#3. America's safety is assured in regards to any harm coming from Iraq since Hussein is a goner. Having said that, there is now a growing concern that new, even more deadly threats are being born out of our involvement in Iraq and more particularly, our continued presence there in the form of the Military. Our goal of "America's safety" is actually being imperiled by our military's continued presence there in the country. Polls taken throughout Iraq indicate that overwhelmingly, Iraqis want us out of their country. Whether Iraq is embroiled in a civil war is neither here nor there in regard to our military and our goal of "America's safety". Internal Iraqi factions shooting at each other is not going to be stopped by putting our military between them and allowing those factions to shoot at us as they try to kill each other.
It has been stated that we wanted to fight them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here. Well, they're all fighting each other over there, so we can come home. They will either keep on fighting each other or come together in the spirit of democracy organizing in the shared disgust with us. Either way, our goal of "America's safety" is still intact.
Now, back to #2. (A free and democratic Iraq)
Here is our failure. For whatever reason, there is no democratic Iraq, in the mold of the US, on the horizon. From what I can see, despite the free and open elections, democracy has not taken off like wildfire. Factions within the country there, whether religious or secular, representative or despotic, feel that Iraq would be best served by each faction's leader or beliefs. These factions can hardly be taken to task for wanting to assert their will when they have seen the superpower of the world show them how to make their will law at the end of a gun barrell. The different factions have simply seen how we have attempted to bring our values, our beliefs to them with tanks, helicopters and assault rifles and so, have followed suit.
Democracy, by virtue of what it is, cannot be enforced by one party on another party. Democracy can only be imitated from example. For even democracy, when forced on a people at the end of a gun, can only then be called what it then has become: fascism. While the goal may be lofty and honorable and perhaps worthwhile, that goal cannot be attained militarily or by force by one country on another without totally conquering the victim country.
So, that goal, in my estimation, cannot be accomplished. I would also add, it
shouldn't be accomplished militarily. This admission is vital for our leaders to embrace.
Having accomplished the goals that can be accomplished militarily and determining that the last goal cannot be accomplished militarily, in my estimation, let me now look to Domer's questions in detail.
Looking Forwardwhat is the vision of Democrats about the effects of a gradual withdrawal The initial kneejerk reaction to this question would be that we have not known what effects an extended stay would be so what difference would it make; but that is dismissive and immature when discussing a situation that results in over a hundred American deaths in the first week of December. I can only surmise that the initial effect of a gradual withdrawal would be one of escalation of violence between warring factions in Iraq's civil war. That would eventually lead to one of those factions gaining the upper hand and possibly destroying or driving the losing faction out of Iraq.
how that will affect the volatile politics of the region,The question then becomes, "How can America, in good conscience, remove our military and allow that chaos and potential genocide to occur?" The answer is plainly that we cannot do it "in good conscience". A way that would allow us to do it without "good conscience" but with some salve for our collective soul would be to engage countries who are representative of the different factions to intercede on our behalf and broker deals between the factions. Engaging surrounding countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to seek out leaders of the factions and offer support in dealings would take America out of it. Factions would be able to commiserate with heads of nations that know where they are coming from rather than a nation they disdain that has no idea why the factions can't get along.
It could be that this would "stabilize" the region by bringing the countries together for talks.
Another possible reaction would be the slow decline of violence between the factions as they grow to trust one another in the absence of perceptions of favoritism on the part of the US and the involvement of "older brother" nations like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. America can still influence Iraq toward the US' goal of "A free and democratic Iraq" by using the only two weapons available to it in this arena: diplomacy and its own behaviour as a model of democracy. If you seek to be imitated, be honorable in your behaviour.
what will that mean to Iraq as a functional polityThe previous answer would amount to a true test by fire of the current Iraqi government. That body must operate independently of US involvement of any kind. America's goals cannot include qualifiers on its goals. If the goal is "A free and democratic Iraq", it cannot tack on "of the sort we would like and would like us back" for that is not freedom nor is it democracy. Self-determination must be part of the Iraq identity represented by freely elected officials of Iraqis' choosing. The US cannot meddle in the affairs of Iraqis and expect them to come away with a valid idea of what democracy is.
and beyond that, the pressing conflict with violent, radical Islamists, If Iraq, as has been put forward by some in support of the invasion, has been the primary battleground in our "war on terror", then we have lost that battle. As stated by our own government studies, we have created more terrorists in Iraq than Hussein ever would have. That is our eternal shame. The whole of our military cannot patrol Iraq forever and hope that would end the thoughts of one more individual turning toward his or her absolute disdain for all things American. In fact, the opposite would go a thousand times farther in accomplishing the goals of the "war on terror". Our immediate absence in Iraq would send the numbers of people with a terrorist agenda against the US plummeting. For without the constant reminder of Americans occupying Iraq, that hatred would ebb immediately.
And with the waning hatred of the US, so goes too support of the leaders of those factions who use that hate as the number one recruitment tool for their ranks.
and, of course, the more "abstract" standing of the US in the world so far as our ability to favorably influence events to our values and interestsOur absence from Iraq would only increase that standing especially in the middle east.
Overall, our goals have either already been accomplished militarily or cannot be accomplished militarily ergo our military presence is no longer viable in Iraq. A re-deployment of the entire military (except for small troops of advisors and trainers of Iraq's own military) would stand to further the third goal of "A free and democratic Iraq". A gradual withdrawal would show the current government of Iraq that it's independence is approaching. This would allow the reins of power to be passed from the military occupation which is seen as pervasive and pertinent in all decisions to the elected Iraqi government who could then announce their own plans for re-building the nation for Iraqis by Iraqis and of Iraqis.
The US could declare victory in its goals and stand ready to assist Iraq on its road to recognition by other nations as a cohesive country with a solid govenment of its own making.
