Who doesn't believe that the decision to invade Iraq was a poor one? I'm interested in their reasoning. President Bush has now announced that it will be up to his successor to decide when and how the troops will come home. Sounds like we are in another quagmire to me. If we leave early, the country will fall into civil war and anarchy, thousands will die, and in the end a strong, charismatic leader will probably brutally take control and we will be left where we started.
If, on the other hand, we stay there and try to put the country back together at the same rate and level of effort we are currently putting into it, anarchy will continue, thousands will die, and we will spend billions in nation-building that may, or may not, show any tangible results. In the end, a future president of the U.S. will decide that enough is enough, and pull out. From here, we go back to the first option.
If on the other hand, we commit ourselves fully to the process and up our level of intervention, we will probably tick off the remaining undecided people, and some of our allies as well, with an increased U.S. military presence, and the insurgency will strengthen. In the end, we will spend billions of dollars more, anarchy will continue, thousands will die, and we will end up spending our resources and finally pulling out, taking us back to option one.
Best case scenario: all the insurgents decide to lay down their weapons and take part in a civil dialogue about the need for tolerance and patience as they work hand in hand for a new government incorporating all three of the major religious viewpoints in the country. Chance that this will happen: 0%
Most realistic best case scenario: we continue at the level of intervention we are at, and the sectarian violence peaks from it's current upward climb, and then slowly decreases as the activities of the newly formed government begin to take more and more effect in peoples lives, and less people believe that violence will change where the country is headed. In this scenario, we still spend billions of dollars, thousands die in the anarchy, and in the end, long years from now, we have a rebuilt, viable Iraqi State that functions through democratic means.
If this last case were to happen, I believe it would take at least twice as long as it already has, and that's a very optimistic view. We're already at three.
I honestly don't believe this will happen. Too many U.S. soldiers do ghastly, dishonorable things, such as the Marines I heard about today that were attacked by a roadside bomb so they went to the three nearest houses and summarilly shot all the men, women, and children inside. 23 defensless Iraqis were killed in cold blood by U.S. soldiers who were mad about being attacked. As long as this goes on, few Iraqis will trust the U.S. to help them build a new country. Plus, most of the Arab world feels very criticized by the U.S., and does not look on our activities with a friendly eye. If you think our media focus on the negative is bad, the Arab press is ten times worse. With this kind of focus on the negative, there's no way people are going to start saying: "Wow, these Americans aren't as bad as we thought. Maybe we should help them out." If they were going to do this, it would have happened long ago.
Sorry, call me pessimistic, but we are responsible for the condition of that country (consider that we were instrumental in bringing Sadam Hussein to power in the first place), and we haven't done anywhere near the quality of job we should have.
So it doesn't matter what adventure you choose here. It looks like all roads lead to Rome...burning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Bog,
It is difficult to see much good coming to Iraq and America's participation there in the short term. Whenever I think about the war there, I am aggravated and sickened...
Here's another point of view to think about:
June 25, 1950: North Korea attacks South Korea... America responds by sending "task forces" the same year. A few American atrocities during the war are relatively well documented.
July 27, 1953: US and North Korea sign an armistice to end casualties.
March 23, 2006 (today): American soldiers are still stationed in South Korea.
The Korean War resulted in nearly uncountable Korean deaths, and many American ones as well. If you count North and South Korea as one "nation", Americans are violently hated by 1/2 of all Koreans... But nearly every South Korean I met was grateful for America's invasion of their homeland. And very few of them would force American troops to leave, if given the power to decide.
We (America) have spent probably billions and billions of dollars on stablizing Korea, and we are still spending it.
I believe we can have the same results in Iraq: Democracy, Stability, Prosperity. But it takes time. South Korea had its first, mostly-free elections while I was there on my mission! But our intervention there was worth it: compare the physical, spiritual, and social lives of North Koreans to South Koreans.
Now whether America has the fortitude to do what is necessary to produce those same results, I suppose time will tell...
Yah, I agree, what the U.S. did to help rebuild in Korea, and other places like Japan, Germany, and Italy, have been very good and helpful. However, the difference I see here, is the state of the world politics and opinion of the U.S., as well as the circumstances under which we invaded. I think it is the difference between an offensive and a deffensive war.
I don't believe in an offensive war. I think it is wrong. And I think we are paying the consequences for it. Too much of the world, especially other Arab nations, sees our invasion of Iraq as an offensive maneuver, and they feel offended and threatened. After all, if we did it to Iraq, we could conceivable do it other places as well.
Because of these problems, there is too much international backing to the insurgency, and there is no way, with the amount of troups we have there, to settle this down. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid.
Post a Comment