Should the U.S. Leave Iraq?
As the U.S. presidential election continues in full swing, a lot of talk centers around Iraq. Senators Clinton and Obama are competing with one another as to the soonest pullout date possible. Senator McCain is pledging to stay the course until victory is at hand. And popular support for the war is at an all time low. So who is right?
There is no question that the U.S. started the war based on wrong intelligence. Prior to the war, there was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found. True, Sadaam was an evil tyrant who started two wars, and who caused the deaths of one to two million people. And true, at one time, he not only had WMD’s, but used them to kill thousands of Iranians and Kurds. The fact that he ran out of WMD’s doesn’t make him a saint, does it. But the fact still remains that the U.S. went in to war based on wrong assumptions and false intelligence.
So what’s the problem in just pulling out as quickly as possible? We would stop the killing and maiming of our brave soldiers. And we would stop the enormous cost to our taxpayers. The war has already cost over half a trillion dollars; money that could have done a lot of good here at home.
But you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that a precipitous pullout could be exceedingly dangerous. Imagine; the U.S. pulls out. A bloodbath ensues. U.S. credibility and deterrence plummets. Extremists of all flavors jump in to fill the power vacuum in Iraq. Iran’s influence in the region continues to grow ever more menacing. Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia follow suit to counter the Iranian threat. The West perceives a threat to its oil supply, and by implication, its economic wellbeing. Result? World War III, with a nuclear edge to it. If the West is inclined to fight for anything, it is dollars and cents.
Perhaps a better course for the U.S. to follow would go something like this:
• We will initiate a gradual pullout and draw down our forces, and redeploy them to military bases located in strategic areas of the Middle East. Our presence in the region will enable us to keep foreign powers in check.
• We will continue to train and supply Iraqi soldiers; to allow them to fight the insurgency, and to reconstitute Iraq as a vibrant and prosperous democracy. Iraqis will do most of the fighting on the ground. We can provide air support and intelligence.
• We will continue to support political reforms and accommodation between the various factions of the Iraqi government.
• We will establish an International Fund for Economic Development in Iraq, which will be used to invest in Iraq’s economy, and to create jobs, in those locations which are secured militarily by Iraqi forces.
• Our vision for Iraq will be a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom—a Vision of Hope—and we will use our influence with the community of nations to make that vision real.
• As circumstances allow, we will suggest a NATO type force, comprised of Muslims, Jews, and Christians, from various nations in the region, which will step up to the plate when called upon to defend the rights of people in the Middle East.
• We stand ready to invest in you, if you are ready to invest in yourselves, by fighting the insurgency, by coming together equitably as a people, and by reconstituting your country as a vibrant and prosperous democracy, in keeping with universal values, and with the values of Islam.
In short, regardless of why we went in, in the first place, it may be prudent to maintain a presence in the region, for the sake of U.S. credibility, which has been weakened considerably, and for the sake of maintaining a measure of deterrence, which will be able to keep in check the dangerous ambitions which threaten world peace.
It is easy to cast a negative light on U.S. intentions. And to be quite honest, a great deal of criticism is warranted in this regard. However, you don’t have to be much of a political strategist to envision a chaotic outcome in the wake of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. In the final analysis, like it or not, the U.S. may be uniquely able to bring a sense of hope to the world, even if she has not been able to carry this mantle well in recent years.
Join the Conversation
How can the U.S. continue to supply Iraqi soldiers when we are on the verge of a major recession?
But you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that a precipitous pullout could be exceedingly dangerous. Imagine; the U.S. pulls out. A bloodbath ensues.
Uh a pretty nasty bloodbath ensued already. Actually since the surge started about 10% of Baghdad was displaced. The cleansing only stopped in mid-2007 because Sadr called a unilateral ceasefire.
Extremists of all flavors jump in to fill the power vacuum in Iraq. Iran’s influence in the region continues to grow ever more menacing. Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia follow suit to counter the Iranian threat.
The US is sucking pretty hard at stemming all of these things now, what do you realistically expect that their prolonged occupation as can accomplish?
I think the expectation of redeploying military forces to the bases in Iraq and the region is going to be considered a given in the political discourse, no matter what. Even Obama has been ambiguous about this, correct me if I’m wrong here.
I disagree with the first sentence, though, I don’t think there’s been a lot of talk about Iraq at all, or many substantial issues, in the election campaign coverage, unfortunately.
Once the Saddam’s regime was overthrown, Iran’s supreme leader, in a Friday prayers sermon, gave his analysis of the event: “this invasion is not a single event but a multiple one: overthrowing Saddam’s regime, that we do admire; presence of US forces in the region, which is more of a threat to the region’s peace; breaking the international laws, which is not acceptable at all.” As I remember, it was not just his analysis, since many people shared the idea in that period of time. Meanwhile, American strategists and their advocates claimed that the whole event “is a single, indivisible package”, which should be either accepted (i.e. embraced) or rejected as a whole. From the standpoint of US think tanks, it was “an absolutely winning package.” From the standpoint of critics, there could be some alternatives to the unilateral US invasion, though such alternatives would not mean an absolute win to US.
Now, the problem is that America is still looking for “an absolutely winning package” to solve the Iraq problem. This is impossible. And if America is to insist on finding this package, she would lose even more.
jbn21, we probably are on the verge of a major recession, if we’re not in one already. A recesssion, as you know, is a period of time when the economy is no longer growing. So let’s say that to get out of the recession we may have to figure out ways to grow our economy.
As you know, a lot of our production jobs are being outsourced abroad. We’re becoming more and more of a service oriented economy. We’re still producing quite a bit though, but we need buyers for our services and our products. And as you know, the world economy is becoming ever more competitive.
I know it may seem strange, but what if places like the Middle East and Africa can be developed as markets for our goods and services? You see China and India scrambling for new markets. Shouldn’t we follow suit?
So instead of abandoning places like Iraq, we should figure out ways to invest there, so that we maximize a chance to create a market in the Middle East. When you supply Iraqi soldiers, you don’t just do it out of the goodness of your heart. You do it to try to stablize the country, and to create a precedent that the U.S. is willing to invest in the Middle East, if the Middle East is willing to invest in itself.
In other words; the best way to promote goodness, is to make being good profitable. If we are good at anything it is making and investing money. If we care about anything it is making and investing money. Why not use our inclination in this regard to transform the economic realities in the Middle East. In that way, we bring stability to the region, neutralize extremist thinking, and perhaps make a buck at the same time, while creating jobs both here and abroad.
In addition, the Middle East could be empowered to clean up the environment. Why not convert oil profits into green profits? If the wealthy Arab states could be convinced as such; why not use some of the oil revenues to create products which are environmentally healthy, or products which help the poor, or products which promote good medical care. A transformation of this sort is possible, and is very desirable in creating a new image for the Middle East. Such an approach is probably the easiest way to curb the influence of ideological extremism. When people have good paying jobs, they are less likely to succumb to the influence of extremist thinking. The extremists will still be around, but not too many people will pay any attention to them.
Nadia, it is true that a lot of blood has been shed. And I don’t mean to be insensitive to the bloodletting on all sides of the conflict. But if we pull out precipitously, there will be a phsychological effect that could increase the violence. The extremists could jump at the opportunity to accentuate the U.S. defeat by allowing the killing to rise to unprecendented proportions, as happened in places like Cambodia. With the U.S. out of the picture, all sorts of forces could be let loose which exacerbate the situation on the ground.
With regard to Iran, and the like, you wonder what difference a U.S. presence in the region would make, even if the U.S. would not be doing most of the fighting. My take on it is that U.S. bases in the area would let all the players know that the U.S. is still there, that it remains committed, and that it will step in if things get out of hand. We’re playing this kind of role around the world, in places like Korea, etc. and it may be necessary until Iraq achieves some measure of stability. Pulling out immediately would send exactly the opposite message; a message which would embolden our enemies, and which would come back to bite us in the ass, like 9/11 did.
And maybe you’re right that there should be more talk about Iraq. Maybe the candidates are avoiding a thorough discussion because of political considerations. But this is not just about popularity. We need to start thinking and talking about all sorts of implications if we are to secure our country in the long run. An easy fix in Iraq may be popular, but not in our best long term interests.
And Mohammad, you’re certainly right to say that any solution is a mixed bag at best. The U.S. is not going to achieve all its objectives, no matter what it does. Despite all the initial optimism, the reality of the situation quickly set in, and the U.S. now strugles with an endless stream of setbacks. All this is true. But as hard as it is, I think we have no choice but to stay engaged in the region, even if it means a mixed bag of successes and setbacks. If we don’t, then a tidal wave of extremism could begin to take hold. Once that happens, our reacion will also have to be extreme, and we will put ourselves, and others, in great peril.
Americans are in a loose loose situation right now. No way around it, this is what they get for behaving like a playground bully.
Also, Iran was already the biggest winner when America invaded Iraq. America would have been if Iraqis welcomed them with open arms, instead they welcomed them with another type of arms, rpgs and ak-47s. If the Americans pull out of Iraq, we can thank America for making Iran even stronger.
Nissim:
Your analysis/solutions are again some sort of idealistic aspirations. “We do this, we do that, and then EVERYTHING goes fine.” If America is really eager to find a solution, a ‘mixed bag’ containing both successes and setbacks, she needs to, before everything else, grasp a realistic view of the Iraq/region.
A ‘realistic view’ means accepting that other actors are here to play their own games, not what America decides for them: this is exactly what US asked for. When America decided to attack Iraq, she said that “I play my game, and you play your games, let’s see who wins.” Now, America is stuck in the Iraq’s battlefield, and asks all of the actors to cooperate so as to save Iraq/US. But now other actors believe that it’s their turn to speak: “you play your game, and we play our games, let’s see who wins, and that is not you for sure.”
A ‘realistic view’ means recognizing the fact that not all of the insurgencies are evil conspiracies of US enemies, but some of them (and maybe most of them) are natural responses of a wronged people to a brutal occupation (either actually brutal or just perceived so) and its consequences.
A ‘realistic view’ means accepting Muqtada Sadr as the symbol of discriminated Shiite population in Iraq; EFPs as the final solution of those who don’t want to be terrorists; and Fallujah fighters as some Sunni Iraqis who fight US for the sake of their nation not al-Qaeda members who fight US for the sake of fighting US. With regards to Sadr, he (or any other symbol of today Iraq) might be an agent of this evil-doer or that one, but even if erased all at once, another symbol will rise and play his role, for the society needs them, for they are the products of the society and play an almost passive role, i.e. they do whatever activities the society asks them to do.
If America happens to understand and recognize these facts, then she might come to change her strategy so as to fit the battlefield and save the whole region.
I agree with Mohammed, I think you are being overly idealistic.
I think it’s a given that Iraq’s problems right now are incredibly complex and are going to be affecting the region for a while, and that means America is going to be engaged in them, I’m not naive about that.
Also, you can’t look at the fighting with one eye. One one side, you have the militias yes, but them you have to look at the government that we have as well which is just not functioning, which is cutting back on services and rations as the need for them grows and people like Sadr are filling that void, that also heavily favours certain segments of the population. Then you have the crises of the widows and the refugees who are both in the millions and are just about ready to explode, and then add on top of this the rising costs of both food and fuel and you have a real crisis. UNHCR and World Food Program’s annual budgets for the mideast amount to what a few days of fighting this war cost, the US took in almost million refugees from Vietnam but only a couple of thousand Iraqis; I think things like that should really be a no brainer when it comes to policy but for some reason they’re not.
The investment thing-well there’s no question a lot of companies want a piece of Iraq, the question is how that’s going to happen. There’s still issues of some billions that Iraq government got fleeced out of by Halliburton and others that didn’t do the reconstruction work, Bechtel who took over managing the water and did a pretty craptastic job-those people need to be held to account. I don’t claim to have all the answers, quite frankly a lot of the articles I’m reading now about the oil negitiatons with various comapnies give me a headache, but I have tons of questions.
Anyways, I would sum up by saying that I think this debate gets framed as either whether the US should stay or leave: I really think, if you acknowledge this war was illegal, then there needs to be a dialogue about what exactly America owes Iraq and how do we hold people accountable for what has already happened. Ideals are one thing but there’s a lot of very urgent, pragmatic things that need to be addressed as well.
Mohammad and Nadia, you are certainly right to say that the situation in Iraq is very complicated, with many competing interests vying for power. You are also probably right to say that I am being a tad too idealistic; but I would counter that this may well be the time to bridge the gap between idealism and reality. If you don’t bridge that gap, then idealism will be stifled, and the resulting reality on the ground will be dim at best.
The plan to invade Iraq was hatched before 9/11. However, 9/11 created the impetus for carrying the plan out. Certain individuals in the U.S. government came to the conclusion that the existing model in the Middle East ran contrary to the best interests of the U.S. and for the Western world.
The existing reality in the Middle East went something along these lines: You have oppressive regimes, sometimes embodied by a strongman like Saddam,etc. You have some religious fanatics who have reached certain understandings with the oppressive regimes, so as to maintain the status quo. And you have the citizenry which is victimized at both ends, and which builds up resentment as a result. The problem is, as 9/11 demonstrated, that the resentment can easily be chaneled against the West.
So the U.S. decided, in the wake of 9/11, to use Iraq to create a new model for the Middle East; one based on democracy, which would so captivate the public imagination that it would be spread throughout the region. That type of thinking has proved to be even more naive than some of my thinking.
However, as Mohammad suggests, there is a game being played here, and all the players want their say. What I am suggesting here is a way of playing the game which is in fact more pragmatic, and which will get us more bang for the buck.
I am suggesting, for Iraq, and for the rest of the Middle East, that the U.S. does what the ideological extremists do. I believe we can co-opt their strategy by doing what they do only better. If they are ideological about Jihad; we should be ideological about Common Sense. If they invest peanuts in charitable handouts; we sould invest some serious dollars in jobs. If they sell a vision of hope for martyrdom or paradise or what have you; we should sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. If they fight with terror; we should launch a military campaign from bases we man in the area, but we should position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We should raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose.
As every turn, we should cut the extremists off at the pass. We should beat them at their own game, and thereby marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. As I am fond of saying: The extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
Now all this may seem excessively idealistic; but I think that it is more realistic in achieving our objectives than what we are doing today. It takes the current cast of characters into account, and addresses them in a way that is more likely to achieve results. We would still face countless setbacks. But we would still remain engaged in the region, in a way that confronts our enemies out there on their own terms, and in ways that they can understand. Will it work? I don’t really know. But I do know that it’s time to try something new.
Should Nazi Germany leave Poland?
It took me a few minutes, Mismo, but I think I know where you’re going with this. For you, the U.S. is Nazi Germany, and Iraq is Poland, at the start of World War II.
With all due respect, I think the comparison is not a fair one. Not even close.
I don’t have to remind you that it was precisely countries like the U.S. and Great Britain that saved the world from Nazi Germany. Then we were the good guys, and now, all of a sudden, we’re the bad guys? I don’t buy it.
If President Bush had simply said: “We’re taking Sadaam out because he is a ruthless dictator who cause the death of between one to two million people,” he would have been morally justified to go in and take him out. Where things got murky is that other reasons were given, which proved to be false. But taking Sadaam out was still a noble act, in and of itself, regardless of any mistaken justifications.
The U.S. is the object of considerable resentment. And some of the resentment may indeed be justified. But the truth still remains that the U.S. is a great country, which is uniquely able to bring hope to the world. She is probably the only country on earth with the wealth, the power, and the inclination, to change things for the better. Does she always get it right? No. But her intentions are usually good, and her ability to deliver remains unmatched.
To my mind, America is the greatest nation on earth, and probably the greatest nation that ever was. She can boast of many achievements: economic strength, military strength, democratic governance, academic and cultural institutions, religious freedom, personal freedom, etc. But with her wealth and her strength the question still remains: To what purpose will America put her wealth, and to what end will she use her strength?
No one can know for sure. But for me, since America has given the loudest voice to the common sense of the common man, and since the people usually advocate on behalf of what is good, then it makes sense that America will continue to be the leader of the free world, and that in the final analysis, she will opt to spread the message of freedom, to enable people around the world to partake of economic prosperity, and to sustain the environmental health of our planet.
We will make mistakes along the way. We are not saints. And yes, we have all sorts of strategic interests at stake. And no, we don’t always help out of the goodness of our hearts. But I do believe that we are the last best hope for mankind, and that in the end, for all sorts of reasons, we will do what is right, and what is in the best interest of humanity at large.
You mean the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europeans who took on bulk of Nazi Germany’s warmechine while the Allies beat a dead snake on the other side and claimed victory for the entire war it.
Who said? Ohh I know… European fucks who raped the other side of the world while Nazis was raping them right? The victors of WW2 are responsible for far more genocides than those who lost it in the Western front. It was the UK, US and Canada that turned away ships with Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis to be slaughtered in concentration camps.
Just wait, in a decade or two, China and India will take over.
America is the world’s largest polluter (37%) and 4% of the world’s population. It’s not going down and America has refused to sign onto Kyoto.
Ahh I am going to sleep..
Jina, no doubt you make some valid points, but I still take the position that America is our best hope, and I mean all of us, you and me both.
The Russians and some Eastern countries did help the allies in World War II. The trouble with the Russians was that their agendas threatened the civilized world in their own way. At one point during the war Churchill said something to the effect that the real danger was not Germany, but Russia itself.
In your second point I think you are referring to the history of colonialism, especially among the European powers. It was a sad history, in many respects, and I know that you for one are very sensitive to the genocides that were instigated by the colonial powers. I don’t really think of the U.S. as a colonial power in the strict sense, but certainly, American interests have been protected vigorously around the world. And you rightly point to the abandonment of the Jews, by the entire Western world, as the evil of the Holocaust began to make itself known.
You say that China and India will soon take over as the leaders of the free world. They will certainly become economic powerhouses. But are they even slightly ready to carry the mantle of freedom? The U.S. will have to compete economically. We cannot afford to lose that edge. And I think that the answer, beleive it or not, is to open up new markets in crazy ass places like the Middle East and Africa. It will create new buyers for our goods and services. It will reinvigorate us spiritaully and economically, as well as the people of those troubled regions.
And about the environment, you are absolutely right. America made the decision, since the Industrial Revolution, to run her economy on fossil fuels. And since our economy is such a large one, that decision has contributed disporportionately to worldwide pollution, and probably to global warming.
But even here, Jina, there is an opportunity. The U.S., with her economy and her knowhow, could probably be instrumental in innovating and adopting green technology, and in promoting its use around the world. Only a country like America could pull that off on a massive scale. And America, unlike almost anywhere else on earth, is not only a powerful country, but is a country where most of the power resides in the people. And if the people get sold on “Green,” then the leadership will have no choice but to listen.
So bottom line, Jina, I agree with you as to some of our faults. But I contend, counter-intuitively as it may seem at first, that it is precisely our faults and our failures that may become the key ingredients in paving the way for future strengths and successes.
The history of man is coming to a head. It will be up to countries like the U.S., which in many ways represent man’s ultimate achievment, to use that legacy of success to solve some of the enormous problems which threaten us around the world. It is a daunting task we face, but given the alternative, what choice do we have but to try.
Nissim: sorry to go off topic, but is this a good example of what you mean by “A Vision of Hope”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7347205.stm
“A $1.5bn plan to ease a housing shortage in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been unveiled by the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF).”
Yes, Elephant, this project is very much what I mean by Selling a Vision of Hope.
Look at how many levels such a project works:
First of all, you’re creating jobs. Palestinians happen to be very good builders. They built half of Israel. Good paying jobs means the dignity that comes with being able to feed, clothe, and house, your family.
Secondly, you’re giving people the dignity and sense of security that comes with owning your own home. You’re giving them a place at the table, a stake in their future.
Thirdly, you’re inspiring people with a sense of Hope, the hope that things could get better.
Fourth, you’re creating a partnership between the Arab world and the Western world. As part of that partnership you’re creating a new ideological framework based on Common Sense. Business creates its own ideological imperative. When you’re making money together, you have to time for ideological nonsense.
Fifth, you’re able to exert some pressure on the ideological extremists. Notice that the new homes in Gaza are being held up. If the West Bank begins to prosper, then pretty soon the Gazans will begin to ask, “Hey, where’s our share?” And they can sqeeze the extremists a lot better than we can. When we sqeeze the extremists, we make martyrs out of them. Martyrdom sell good over there. But when their own people sqeeze them, then it’s quite a different story.
In any event, thank you for pointing out this story. You seem to have a very good handle on what Selling a Vision of Hope is all about. Please don’t hesitate to visit, register, and comment on my website at http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org
THIS WEB SIT HELPED SO MUCH!
The soliders should stay in Iraq because all the soilders who fought and died would have died for nothing.
YOU SUCK CALVIN AND JAMES!!!
I mean John not james