The Declaration of Independence was signed (on or around) July 4, 1776, those affixing their signatures in agreement that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It wasn't until nearly 100 years later, after the Civil War, that slavery was outlawed and people of color were granted the right to vote, own property, and go to schools (at least in theory).
It was another 55 years before women could vote.
Something to keep in mind while we wait for Iraq to come together on politcal benchmarks and reconciliation. If it took America, conceived under the auspices of liberty and democracy nearly 100 years to end slavery and 150 years from establishment to give women the vote, perhaps it's not really responsible to expect such grand movement from Iraqis in the course of 2 years, 3 years or a decade, especially when these ideas are not their own, and we have no real indication that even a plurality of those in power believe in these concepts. Even assuming they can "get it together" eventually, the question is what do we do in the interim.
If we leave, most believe it will lead to civil war, genocide and Al-Qaeda and Iran overrunning the country (what the Turkish/Kurdistan hostilities? How can Iran and Al-Qaeda co-exist when they detest each other? These and other such questions go unasked, nevermind unanswered). Also, according to a Thomas Ricks column in the Washington Post a week ago, recent Pentagon war games simulations resulted in the following:
If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."
Then again, if we leave what happens to our strategic position in the region, in terms of oil and potential threats. If we leave, will we be sacrificing a potential ally and regional foothold? And what of the 180,000 civilian/private contractors there? Do we leave them in without the military or mandate their withdrawal too? Or will they simply leave when the defense department money dries up?
On the other hand if we stay, what happens? The common line is we will "defeat" Al-Qaeda. The question that once again goes unanswered is how do we defeat a multi-national organization centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with cells throughout the region, eastern and northern Africa, Europe, and even, apparently, here in North America by keeping the majority of our army solely in Iraq? Even if we kill every member of the several "al-Qaeda"s, the Iranian Quds Force, Sadr, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taleban, and a whole host of other unknown, unnamed, undetected organizations will persist and what is to stop them from stepping in where bin Laden leaves off?
Also, what assurances do we have that the Iraqi politicians will ever buy into the philosophy of Locke, Paine, Jefferson, and the like. Muqtada al-Sadr has made his anti-Americanism quite clear, and as his faction is a stalwart of the support base for Prime Minister Maliki it makes one wonder how effective this government can be. A large block of Sunni MP's just ended a month-long (I believe) boycott, and the group just attained a quorom for the first time this summer last week before heading out for a vacation.
As I stated earlier it could take decades for the diplomatic-political brokering that needs to take place and if that's what the president and others of his ilk feel is the best course of action, why not be honest and announce and call for an open-ended commitment. Because it's dishonest to say "we cannot leave until the mission is accomplished because it is vital to national security" while at the same time saying "we are not in an open-ended commitment." If said mission is indeed as important as you say, the only responsible position is to stay until it is achieved, however long that may be, and if that isn't the defintion of open-ended, perhaps this year out of the classroom has atrophied my brain.
As usual, I'm left with more questions than answers, but the more I look at this situation I am increasingly convinced this will be the main issue in the 2010 mid-term congressional elections and probably into the 2012 presidential race. The framing of the "If we leave" scenario as absolute, untenable pandemonium seems to have won over the minds of the people and as a result, anyone who proposes withdrawal or anything similar is cast as naive or rash in their thinking.
We aren't leaving Iraq. Not today. Not 6 months from now. Not January 20, 2009. Maybe not ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment