Why we must not leave Iraq

The title of this letter is bound to offend many, if not most, who read my notes. Nevertheless, for the open-minded amongst you, I would like to recommend a recent editorial in the Washington Post by Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400909.html. (For those that don’t know, signing up to the Washington Post website is easy and absolutely worth your time.) There are two reasons why I find his article compelling. First, it has bothered me enormously of late that our partisan divide extends to Iraq. Conservatives are for “staying the course.”

 

(Today Mr Bush officially retired this terminology, for fear that it was hurting his buddies in the midterms. Here’s a funny aside: according to the BBC, Bush stated on CNBC that he had been “talking about a change in tactics… ever since we went in.” That’s an awfully frightening statement. That doesn’t sound like the man of resolve so often portrayed to us. But it doesn’t sound like the man of contemplation and insight occasionally bandied about either. Rather, it sounds like… well, it sounds like an idiot: talking about changing your plan since the moment you have boots on the ground doesn’t sound like you have a clue what you are doing. Digressions, digressions…)

 

Conservatives are for “staying the course.” This means, apparently, just keep troop levels where they are, and keep killin’ them terrorists. (Read: brown people. Rag on head is optional, as Mexicans have now been added to the ranks of suspected terrorists. And, a la Mr Ashcroft, suspected terrorist = terrorist.) Liberals, meanwhile, are all for timetables or immediate pull out. The latter: a.k.a. “Cut-n-run,” “timetable.” The former: a.k.a. “stupid.” Conservatives who, though originally for the war, are tired of it (e.g., maybe you lost a relative in combat) are no longer conservatives—certainly not Republicans. Liberals who, though originally against the war, now believe we should stay (e.g., maybe you think that we now have a responsibility to all those millions of folks who at least had sanitation facilities and electricity under a brutal dictator) are no retarded—or whatever other intelligence-related insult comes to mind.

 

This is not just unfortunate partisan bickering. It is the worst kind of irony: the kind that affects the lives of, quite literally, hundreds of millions of people around the world.

 

This is why I, someone who is typically considered “liberal” by his acquaintances, can find one of the best readings of the current situation in an article by a resident scholar at the preeminent conservative think-tank of America. Because in my (and apparently Mr Kagan’s as well, though I would never presume to speak for the man) opinion, the above descriptions of “liberal” and “conservative” are grossly misguided and unbelievably naïve. Put another way, they don’t make any consideration of history, or the nature of the types of folks who have recently put America on their “To Bomb” list. For example, let me quote a paragraph from Mr Kagan’s article:

 

“In 1991 the United States encouraged rebellions against Saddam Hussein and then abandoned to his inhuman vengeance the Kurds and Shiites who answered the call. That abandonment, still fresh in the minds of many Iraqis, is one reason for the suspicion with which the United States was greeted in 2003. What will happen if we abandon the progressive forces of Iraq once again with the hypocritical declaration that the resultant failure is their own fault? What reasonable moderate in the Muslim world -- or anywhere -- will ever again rely on America?”

 

Liberals (especially lecherous Congress-persons, desperate to retake power) either don’t know about this little historical mishap or they don’t consider it when they talk about bringing the troops home. That is, I don’t know anyone who has ever addressed this particular problematic situation in an argument for troop withdrawals. But the fact of the matter is that some of the absolute worst atrocities which Mr Hussein committed occurred in retaliation for our false promise to back this revolt. Then we appear as “liberators”—imagine their skepticism. Then we disappear before anything is stable—imagine their utter disgust! But the conservative arguments I hear are no better. There are very few people to my knowledge in all of America who still talk about increasing troop levels, beefing up diplomacy with Syria and Iran, spending more money, offering competitive contracts, and begging or strong-arming the international community to give us as much assistance as they can afford. Our conservative field is certainly not talking about the Palestinians, and how it would make us just look so damn good if we started to lean on the Israelis again. Unfortunately, that’s just too complicated for your typical stupid American. We just don’t understand complex political maneuvering, and in an election year Washington types don’t worry about the possible efficacy of seemingly external issues. They worry about votes.

 

It’s no wonder Joe Liberal and Jane Conservative think each other so retarded. The truth is that, in most of my experience, they are both right. The sad part is that neither one seems to realize it. And the infuriating thing is that everyone blames the media and the government for failing in their mandate to provide us with useful information with which to vet their pathetic justifications. Whenever I hear such sentiments, all I can think is, “Are you listening to yourself? By asking the question, ‘Why don’t they tell me X?’ you answer your own question by proving how much more effective it is to feed you garbage. Why? Because you don’t ask. But once everything becomes so glaringly obvious that repercussions begin to be felt, you are shocked and outraged as if someone surprised you with a sledgehammer to the head.” Sound odd, a bit harsh? Cf. 9/11. Forget conspiracy theories. There are good reasons people around the world wanted to blow up financial hubs and government buildings in America. What are those reasons? Average Joe STILL doesn’t know. But have we at least stopped them, particularly if we are really interested in national security, particularly still if they were bad things in the first place? Of course not. Is it any wonder why people want to blow us up?

 

Better yet, is it any wonder why other people want so desperately to get into this country? The rest of the world must look at us and think, “My GOD! Can you imagine being so fat and dumb as to never have to worry about anything—and then, when the father’s sins are visited upon the son, to fire indiscriminately into the world community with your guns while screaming through your tears of anguish and rage, ‘WHY? WHY!? WHY!!’—and then, after you have exhausted yourself in the manner of an infant after a tantrum, to go back to being fat and dumb and wondering ‘Why am I spending money and bullets and children on brown people again? Weren’t they the ones who attacked us, and for no reason?’”

 

Who knows? Maybe it is our X-ian heritage. We’re no good at recognizing our ineptitude and striving to be better persons as a result. But we’re no good at guilt, either. Rather, we’re all about scapegoats. Hell, our first one was God Himself. For 2000 years we’ve been blaming him for all the stupid crap that we do. Is it at all surprising that, after invading and annihilating a country, we’re now telling the locals that it is their fault that they still don’t have drinking water because they can’t get their lives together?

 

Digressions abound. Scotch, although a celebrated lubricant in other quarters, does not grease the wheels of consistent analysis. And in one of my blood it seems to magnify even the most insignificant sentiments of rage.

 

Read the article. See for yourself.

 

-W.