The President had some remarks on the third anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the downfall of the Hussein regime. Meanwhile, Rep. Christopher Shays talks of the mistakes made and the future of Iraq.
Despite the constant torrent of negativity, I still believe that the removal of the Hussein regime was the right thing to do. The President, despite the historical revisionists, did make human rights one of the primary justifications for the removal of that tyrannical regime, and critics of the war cannot ignore the fact that if they had their way, Saddam Hussein would be murdering thousands of Iraqis each day. Even if Saddam fell organically, how many Iraqis would have died in the ensuing violence? The argument that it would have been a more moral action to leave the people of Iraq under the bootheel of oppression has never struck me as very convincing. The argument that we should have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or some other state sponsor of terrorism is a red herring. The arguments that Bush just wanted oil, land, or vengeance are facile and ignorant. The arguments that this is somehow a “racist” war waged on the behalf of the Israelis is not only ignorant, but disgustingly so.
There is to be a case to be made that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been the best course of action. The problem is that it is neither a very moral one or a strategically sound one. The Duelfer Report makes it exceedingly clear that the sanctions regime was failing, and that once it did, Saddam Hussein would move to reconstitute his WMD programs. It is also clear that the UN was complicit in the largest financial scam in world history as Saddam Hussein bribed UN officials and stole billions in humanitarian aid. The nations most opposed to the war – France, China, and Russia, were complicit in illegal arms deals, violations of sanctions, and taking bribes from the Ba’athist regime.
At the end of the day, fewer US soldiers have died in three years of combat in Iraq than died in one month of combat in Vietnam. The Iraqis are slowly but surely building the basic foundations of a representative government – and despite the anarchy wrought by tens of thousands of criminals loosed by the Hussein regime and foreign terrorists bent on ripping Iraq apart, progress is being made.
At the same time, it seems that the critics of this war and their constant predictions of failure are repsentative of their desire for Iraq to fail. The true test for an honest critic of the war is the question of whether they would rather see Iraq succeed or George W. Bush fail. Based on the rhetoric of the war, it seems like the lives and freedom of millions of Iraqis is secondary to partisan politics. The shameless way in which Democratic politicians have played politics when our soldiers are in harm’s way has alienated many Americans from the Democratic Party. It used to be that politics stopped at the water’s edge and politicians were Americans first and partisans a distant second – that no longer appears to be the case. The question of the propriety of the war is now academic – we are in Iraq and we have the moral obligation to finish the job. Those Democrats, including Rep. John Murtha, that would counsel an immediate cut and run from Iraq would leave a shattered country and guarantee the deaths of tens of thousands. The Democrats may like to claim a façade of patriotism, but the reality of the situation is stark and simple: a withdrawal from Iraq would hand al-Qaeda the greatest victory they could ask for. It is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants. Bin Laden learned from Mogadishu that Americans could be cowed into surrender – do we truly want to prove him right again?
The reality is that after three years in Iraq, we’ve made many mistakes, but learned valuable lessons on fighting in the 21st Century environment. Our enemy is tenacious and ruthless, and we’re hampered by a media that has become virtual cheerleaders for defeat. At the same time, we are winning this war of attrition. The terrorists failed to push us out of Iraq. They failed to stop democratic elections. They’ve produced violence, but Iraq is not yet in a state of civil war, and for most of Iraq, life goes on as it always has. Iraqi Kurdistan is a hub of activity, and one of the sanest places in the Middle East where a long-oppressed people have found a home.
What truly disgusts me more than anything else is the less than subtle racism inherent on the part of the anti-war crowd. We’re told time and time again that Iraq is incapable of rational self-government – that the only way that Arabs can avoid slaughtering themselves is when they are under the bootheel of an autocratic strongman – that civil war in Iraq is inevitable and that Iraq’s many ethnic groups are damned to conflict. It used to be that liberalism stood for a universal doctrine of human rights, racial and religious tolerance, and a belief in democratic government. Today, the left has become virtually indistinguishable from the John Bircher paleocon right. One can oppose the means of Iraq’s liberation but still wish for Iraq to achieve victory – and be willing to do whatever it takes to see that end met.
The Bush Administration have let the critics of this war seize the initiative. President Bush began as an inspiring and sometimes courageous wartime leader – yet now he’s become altogether too insular and has been unwilling to truly defend our mission in Iraq. Part of it is undoubtedly due to the media’s relentless bias, but Bush needs to once again remind the American people why we’re fighting. If ever this country needed a Churchill, it’s now when this long war has drained even the most ardent supporters. The cause we’re fighting for is just – it would be nice if the President could give it the support it needs.
The story of Iraq is not, and never has been, solely a story of violence and civil strife. The argument that the Iraqi people are so radically different than us – that they would rather kill their neighbor then have a decent life for their children, is an argument that systematically dehumanizes the Iraqi people. The reality is that the people of Iraq are sick and tired of the violence, sick and tired of terrorism, and sick and tired of arrogant Westerners constantly telling them that their country is about to split down the seams.
For the past three years, for some every setback has been an unmitigated disaster, every battle a losing one, every protest a sign of imminent civil war, and every mistake made by the US a sign of our obvious corruption and evil. At the same time, the people of Iraq have bravely struggled to rebuild a country shattered by decades of autocracy and war – and when the history of this war is written, it will be written by the free people of Iraq, not the narrow-minded critics who would denigrate them every step of the way.
I agree with you that human rights were prominently mentioned by the administration as a reason for in initiating military action in Iraq. It is difficult to understand your argument that the human rights motivation would then require a similar invasion of other brutal, human rights violating country’s supporting terrorism as a red herring. Is there something more moral about rights violations in other countries? Certainly factions disagreeing with the presiding despots in Iran, Syria, etc. have been killed, tortured and otherwise oppressed as did Saddam in Iraq. Do you have any additional specifics that might clarify the red herring accusation?
It is additionally difficult to understand the argument that President Bush did not have any personal motivations for going into Iraq militarily, especially personal vengeance. If someone tried to kill my father, and that person had handed my father a large (perceived) professional failure that in part lead to his loss of the presidency, I would be angry. If this did not play a part is the President’s thinking, then why did he choose to move on Iraq, which had a clear, but not nearly as substantial connections to 9/11 terrorists as did other countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia? These countries were clearly as much or more of a threat in supporting terrorists wanting to attack America, brutal dictatorships, and the other stated motives for the Iraq war. How is it possible to conclude no personal motives for the Iraq war?
You further stated, “The true test for an honest critic of the war is the question of whether they would rather see Iraq succeed or George W. Bush fail.†First, why do you think you have the right to set the criteria for honest criticism of the Iraq war. Since you are not opposed to the war, and heavily disagree with critics, you have a clear bias. It is highly doubtful that you would accept a war critics pronouncement that the “true test for a war supporter is the question of whether they would rather see George Bush succeed or Iraq fail.†This is just as false of a dichotomy as they one you selected. Second, while some Democrats have used the Iraq war politically, no one is remotely close to President Bush in using Iraq and terrorism politically. The use of 9/11 and terrorism in almost the entire 2004 Bush campaigning was relentless and shameless. Third, you have a limited knowledge of history to drag out the old “politics stopped at the water’s edge†chestnut. Almost all of America’s wars were subject to political criticism, including the World Wars. When the country moved toward ginned up wars, such as Vietnam, political criticism became vociferous. This is a factor in the type of criticism of Iraq, and it would occur no matter who the President. Your “hate Bush†meme doesn’t hold water regarding the Iraq war. Critics see the entire effort as wrong, and if John Kerry had triggered the mess, critics would be just as vocal.
The cut and run idea, as well as the racism accusation toward war critics is equally curious. To think that violence and instability in an artifically created country such as Iraq, among three disparate factions (Sunnis, Shia’s and Kurds), with a long history of violent conflict, oppression and retaliation might interfere with their ability to form a peaceful, lasting democracy imposed by an outside power is hardly racist. Acknowledgement of the facts of Iraqi history is not a wish for failure. If you think the religious convictions of the Sunnis and Shias that has motivated disharmony and violence will be surrendered for America’s need to have a good outcome in Iraq is hopelessly naïve. These a deeply held religious beliefs that are not indicative of Arab lack of humanity, as you accuse critics of believing, but the depth of religious disagreement promoting violence, clearly not limited to any racial, ethnic, or national affiliation. Lots of lily white Christians have killed and been killed over religious ideas throughout history. The argument is as porous as an arena football defense.
As for our moral obligation to finish the Iraq war, as you stated, how do you see a successful finish, given the hatred and distrust of the three main factions in Iraq? Do you have any evidence that the long standing differences can be solved without outside management? Do you wish American troops to stay in Iraq, dying some here, a few there, interminably? Leaving any time would then be a cut and run.
Lastly, Bush isn’t supporting the war enough? The media is losing the war for America? Lovely talking points, but no identifiable logic in play. The Iraq war remains a bad idea, and bad ideas most frequently have bad outcomes no matter who supports them or who criticizes them.
“Saddam Hussein would be murdering thousands of Iraqis each day.”
Thousands per day? Meaning hundreds of thousands per year? Get real! Unless you also support invading every other country will dictators who kill their citizens, the decision to single-out Hussein as unworthy doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s almost as if you found out the guy wasn’t really a threat to our national security and desperately searched for another reason to justify the invasion…..
Nah, that would never happen.
“progress is being made”
Yes, schools and hospitals are being rebuilt. We get it. That’s good stuff! Now let’s get out of pretend mode and start focusing on the 99% of things that are going wrong there.
“What truly disgusts me more than anything else is the less than subtle racism inherent on the part of the anti-war crowd.”
And here I only thought us liberals cynically and stupidly played the race card.
It’s a red herring in that one of the biggest arguments against the war is that we were too “unilateral” and we didn’t have a sufficient causus belli to justify a war. As bad as Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are, they weren’t under US sanction. They’ve never invaded another country. (Iran technically did, but that was provoked by Saddam.) Under what causus belli would we invade Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria?
Saudi Arabia’s the reddest of those red herrings because having US troops invade the land of the Prophet would instantly be considered an act of war against Islam itself by most Muslims. The idea of us invading a country that is at the very least a nominal ally and is the birthplace of the Muslim relgion isn’t a very well thought-out plan.
For one, official US policy has been to remove the Hussein regime since 1998. Secondly, the same arguments above apply – we have no clear causus belli to attack either Saudi Arabia or Iran (although we may have one for Iran soon if they develop nuclear weapons.
It’s no longer in doubt that Iraq violated the terms of the Gulf War cease fire. We know beyond any doubt that they were developing missiles with a range greater than 150km. They were keeping Kuwaiti POWs hostage. Saddam Hussein did not meet the terms of UN Resolution 1441. The lack of WMDs was an embarrassing failure of intelligence, but we were hardly the only country to believe that Saddam possessed banned weapons.
Mainly because they’d be the same thing. Now if you’d asked whether I’d sacrifice George W. Bush’s presidency in order to see Iraq succeed, I’d say yes in a heartbeat. The problem is that the critics of this war keep proposing ideas that either won’t work or are already be done. If the Democrats would have a better plan for Iraq, I’d vote Democrat in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the only plan that has much currency with the Democrats is to cut and run.
Except that’s a relevant political issue. The question of which candidate would have been stronger on defeating terrorism and upholding national security was the political question of 2004, and Bush had as much right to state his record as Kerry did to criticize it.
In 1944 Thomas Dewey refrained from attacking Roosevelt on the war because he felt that it would make him seem unpatriotic – despite the fact that the isolationist Republicans at the time thought that FDR had used Pearl Harbor as a pretense for war. It wasn’t until the counterculture hijacked the Democratic Party in 1968 that the old adage about politics stopping at the water’s edge became true. (See Eugene R. Wittkopf The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy for a very detailed discussion of domestic politics and US foreign policy.)
Except history is not destiny. Iraq’s past history doesn’t mean that the Iraqi people are damned to fight amongst each other and that Iraq is doomed to civil war.
It won’t be because of America’s need, it will be because of enlightened self-interest. The Sunnis are a minority, and they can’t abide Shi’ite domination. The Shi’ites have the majority, and much of the oil, but the Sunnis dominated them once before, and if the US leaves there’s a good chance that they’ll be dominated by Iran (and Iraqi Shi’ites are not very pro-Iran as a whole -some of the bloodiest fighting in the Iran/Iraq War occurred between Iraqi Shi’ites and Iranian Shi’ites at the al-Faq Peninsula. The Kurds have their mountains and their peshmerga, but turmoil to their south doesn’t help them very much, and the Kurds are more pro-American than most Americans are. Plus, the Kurds know that America will act to keep the Turks in check so long as we’re in Iraq.
All three sides have something to gain from unity and almost nothing to gain from civil war. Even Moqtada al-Sadr has been toning down his rhetoric as of late. The Iraqis know very well that their situation is delicate.
What’s being called “civil war” in Iraq is the same thing that would happen if someone emptied every prison in America and our police were outnumbered and outgunned. 100,000 criminals in a country of 26 million can cause a great deal of damage, especially when they can get weapons, cash, and explosives from any number of sources.
Our job is simple: finish training the Iraqi troops until they can control the security situation on their own. That’s already happening at an accelerated rate. We won’t withdraw so much as fade into the periphery as Iraqi troops continue to take the lead. I fully expect a nominal presence in Iraq for decades, just as we stayed in Germany for decades – in fact, that’s part of the deal. However, the transition between US troops performing active patrols and Iraqis forming active patrols is already happening, and more and more Iraqi troops are becoming battle-ready.
Developing an army takes time – and we’re just starting to see that process play out. Once the security situation stabilizes, then we can see some real development on other fronts. However, we cannot leave until the Iraqi military is ready to replace us, and that will take the better part of a year, perhaps more as time goes on.
Iraq is hardly a failure. It is not doomed to civil war. The country will suffer setbacks and reversals, but the level of progress is evident. The most important thing is not to simply throw up our hands and walk away, but to finish the job. Failure simply is not an option.