Withdraw American forces from Iraq or leave them until our political goals have been achieved?
The bloggers have answered the question and it is now time for them to drop the gloves (it's Stanley Cup season) and throw some serious foreign policy punches...
Click comments to check up on this week's debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
First, I find it strangely contradictive, and extremely presumptious, to believe that a withdrawal will strengthen the Iraqi government on all fronts (security, military, economy, etc.). For one, when has Iraq and the word "stable" ever been a related term? The thousands of years where bloody civil war after bloody civil war happened? Or, the stable government led by a despot (Hussein) who stole from his country, murdered thousands of his own people (even family), made ties with the criminally insane, and threw his country under the rug for self-gain and riches?
Which one shall we term more stable?
We say that the Iraqis must learn to protect themselves. That they must learn to "democratically" govern themselves. That they must step up to protect their "national" pride and continue on the "successful" path to political freedom. One problem: do the Iraqis know what that tastes like? Will the ant-American sects that control numerous regions/neighborhoods in Iraq let that happen? Will they continue to murder innocent people because they simply want change? The problem with the Iraqi citizens is that they do not know who to believe.
I am not simplifying the Iraqi people. I am not degrading their culture or their future. I am simply stating the obvious. They are VERY different from us. Beliefs, culture, religion, governance, economy, etc. So, how can all of these leftist, agenda seeking, Americans step in and demand a withdrawal? Withdrawal from an unstable country that was unstable before unstable. Some common sense has to be seen. Some simple logic of what has been true for century upon century has to be noticed. Rome wasn't built in a day, but somehow, in a country where democracy hasn't even scratched the surface, we want to skip the training wheels and go directly to the aggressive push from behind.
Second, the issue of saving face. The United States has to be one of the only hegemons in known history to have a sector of the population think that it is important "to look good." I'm half tempted to say, just like I will teach my daughter, to not care what others think about you. Do the Iranians care what people think about them? Do the Russians care what people think about them? Do the Chinese care what people think about them? The only country that might fall into that category is France, and that isn't saying a lot. But to humor the bleeding hearts, let's give this a for instance. Say we do care about what others think (we donate the most per capita even though we take up a small global population to worldwide charities and causes by a landslide), do we want to be known for assisting in stability (no matter what the cost) or as the country who gave up and said, "Here, take your stinkin' country and kill yourselves over its rights and responsibilities."
I have heard many arguments saying, "we should withdrawal, but stay to provide stability. Stay to hold their hand as they setup a new government." That's brilliant thinking. Really, it is. But, can you hold hands while being shot at and not knowing which one the gunman was trying to hit? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't win the marathon if you haven't put in the time to train. How is this any different? Have we put in the time? How do any of us know? Can we put a price tag and a timetable on democratic freedom? If we can, then I do not want to be apart of a system that relates money and time to lives. Providing stability, or "hand holding", cannot be done without military involvement. We have seen what an excellent job the Iraqi "army" has done over the past several years. It's a little like the Jackson Explorers...you look at them and think, "Hmmm, should I take them seriously or not? Do they even have guns?"
Here's the choice: You either pullout and add to the chaos, or, you stick around and finish what you started. We aren't there for trivial purposes. We aren't there because we owe something to somebody. We aren't there to pound our chest and look like the dominant wolf in the pack. We are there to assist towards a resolution. We are there to help and assist with the security in a region that is a hot-bed for terrorsit activity. We are there because we have to be. Not because we need to be. These logical "philosophies" are pretty universal and unchanging. What sounds right? Throwing fuel on the fire or helping to put it put?
I first want to further illustrate some of the points from my original answer to the question that were misunderstood and then I will respond to your answer to the question. I did not assert (as you allege) that withdrawing from Iraq would strengthen the Iraqi government on all fronts. I do not think that and I do not believe I implied this in any way. My main argument was that withdrawal will strengthen the legitimacy of the government, undermine the popularity of the various militias, foreign Jihadist groups, and Iraqi opposition factions that refuse to take a peaceful and appropriate part in the political process. No, simply withdrawing American forces will not immediately strengthen the Iraqi government economically – but neither does the continued presence of 140,000 occupying troops. Whether the Iraqi government can use an American withdrawal to strengthen the Iraqi army and security forces will depend on whether they behave competently concerning basic Iraqi desires (reconciliation with opposition factions, improving the crippled national infrastructure, continuing to fight foreign elements operating in the country, and maintaining democratic rule in Iraq.)
The second misunderstanding we have had concerns my comments on “saving face.” Attempting to restore trust in our foreign policy repair the strained relationships with our allies around the globe is not related at all to your extended metaphor about wanting to “look good” or “be popular” in the international community. I appreciate the fact that you will teach your daughter not to let opinions of others determine the choices she will make in life, but this is entirely unrelated to the point I was making and the effect our invasion and continued occupation of a foreign country has on the world’s opinion of the United States. My comment refers to building strong relationships with our allies, maintaining trust between some of the countries we may have a tense connection with, and keeping diplomatic and cooperative opportunities alive with the nations we tend to have an antagonistic relationship with. We want to be viewed with respect, not disdain. If this is the case we will be able to have much more influence on world affairs without resorting to military power. Under the Bush administration our only diplomatic tool has become the gun. We’ve lost the immense power of American diplomacy that helped us to achieve victory in the Cold War. You yourself seem to be confused as to what you really believe when it comes to seeking international trust and respect. You’ve criticized my comment on “saving face,” but you had previously stated that our “reputation has been tainted” in Iraq. You prescribed seeking international assistance and low-level discussions with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia concerning the reconstruction of the country. I am confused. I thought we were not supposed to care what others think of us or our mission in Iraq. Regardless of what your real position is (for it is not quite clear to me), building strong partnerships and having our foreign policy be trusted will allow these talks to be more successful – if they even happen at all. A strong standing in the international community makes sanctions, diplomatic and economic partnerships, and UN assistance in human rights issues work.
A second contradiction I have picked up on refers to the reason you believe we are (and should still be) in Iraq. In your response to the question you announced that you subscribed to Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” theory. In your own words, “I strongly believe in the philosophy ‘you broke it, you fix it.’” However, in your rebuttal to my post you claim, “we aren’t there because we owe something to somebody.” It surely sounds like in one we’re there because we have an obligation to fix Iraq since we broke it in the invasion and subsequent occupation, yet in your other post we’re not there at all for the Iraqis and do not owe anything to them.
On this note, I enjoyed your examples of other countries and how much they care about world opinion. Some, quite humorously, do not even give a passing glance to historical or present fact. Do the Iranians care about what the world thinks of them? You are correct on this one. No, they generally do not care. They are currently pursuing an unapproved and largely condemned nuclear energy program and show little if any respect for the UN or international law. However, because of this they have little international respect, few true allies (aside from Syria and internationally condemned groups like Hamas and Hezbollah), and almost no influence on international affairs – even in the Middle East. They’re forced to use violent proxy groups to exert their national will. The only time Iran can get noticed is by developing an illicit nuclear program, funding Hezbollah, or denying the Holocaust. Russia doesn’t care either – but again they have little influence on world affairs for this very reason. They’re not respected and not trusted. Even some of their former satellite nations have unequivocally allied themselves to the West and a few are even considering joining NATO. During the Cold War they did care how they were viewed by foreign nations and did in fact have considerable leverage (we felt threatened by it) on the international community. They were able to use these good relationships to exert their national will and carry out their foreign policy agenda. I find your analysis of China and France patently inaccurate. The Chinese do in fact care greatly how they are viewed by the international community. Take for example, their incredibly expensive and comprehensive preparations for the Olympics. The Chinese government is trying to present the very best picture of their modernized country to the world by way of the summer games. They’re seeking to attract international investment to strengthen their economy. They are attempting to build international partnerships based on trust and respect to increase their influence on world affairs – and it is working. Look no further than Africa as an example. African countries now are viewing China favorably and China has considerable leverage there. China is trying to claim their place as a world power by building the relationships needed to increase their influence. Finally, I find your use of France as a country that cares greatly about what others think of it as nothing short of laughable. On your entire list, the country that cares least about increasing its foreign influence is France; ironically it is probably the most isolationist of all your examples. France has pursued global economic partnerships (Airbus for example) but little else. They’ve distanced themselves considerably from NATO throughout history and independently developed their own nuclear weapons program. In fact, the Force de Frappe, France’s nuclear deterrence organization, was developed to provide France with the means defend the country from Soviet attack independently of NATO.
You conclude this section by implying that we will be viewed one of two ways: either as the country that stuck it out to provide security for Iraqis or alternatively, the country that uncaringly left 20 million people to violent civil war, sectarian death squads and genocide. Similarly in your response to the question, you simplified the entire situation in the same way by declaring that we had only two choices: withdraw and add to the chaos or stay and finish the job. It is irresponsible, inaccurate, and misleading to characterize the debate in this way. The problem is that you tend to provide two very limited choices or outcomes to every situation relating to the war. There’s the good and the evil, the black and white, the right and the wrong, the hero and the villain – and your assessments are just too simplistic and inaccurate. The situation is far more complex that just the two possibilities you have illustrated in any of these situations. Our involvement in Iraq for the last seven years will be viewed on a wide spectrum, ranging from total condemnation to unequalled praise (Bush’s buddies when they stop by the ranch). Withdrawal will not be as simple as what you have detailed either. If we stay there is no guarantee that democracy will flourish and security will increase just as it is inaccurate to claim it is undisputable that our withdrawal will precipitate civil war and genocide. You stated that one of our only two choices (aside from staying and “finishing the job”) was to withdraw forces and never look back. That is plain inaccurate and I do not believe anyone to be taken seriously is calling for total disengagement from Iraq. Smart proponents of ending the occupation are calling for strong diplomatic and economic ties to Iraq. Some are even advocating a continued military and security ties with Maliki’s government. I believe we should watch the new government and the situation from the sidelines while providing economic support to aid Iraqi-led reconstruction. (Government led reconstruction without American occupation will increase the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, decrease unemployment, and pump resources into the lagging economy.) There is absolutely no reason we have to put on the blindfold and forget about Iraq if we withdraw.
I also want to address your assertion that withdrawal will certainly lead to civil war and even genocide. This is a widely accepted “fact” trumpeted by conservatives and other proponents of a continued military presence in Iraq. They claim American forces are deterring a civil war and removing them will destroy a fragile, tacit support and cause the entire security situation to crumble. Proponents of war started using this to justify continued occupation of Iraq in 2004 before the US congressional elections. It was based on speculation by highly competent policy analysts that claimed civil war COULD happen if Americans left Iraq to its own devices. To push their own beliefs, supporters of the war turned this speculation on the POSSIBILITY of civil war into CERTAINTY that it would happen and the only thing keeping it from happening was the presence of American forces. This is untrue. A low-level, high-intensity civil war raged for years after the invasion between the Iraqi government, ex-Ba’athist Sunni factions, anti-occupation Shi’a Islamist factions, foreign militias, and various other democratic, nationalist insurgents running the full gamut of religions and ethnicities. American troops did not prevent this civil war from occurring; they simply became entrenched in it by taking sides and allying themselves with certain factions and militias. A strange paradox is occurring in the streets of Iraq and on Western television screens. Anywhere else (Lebanon, Palestine for example) this kind of factional fighting would be called a civil war. For one reason or another and because US forces are involved, our media and government officials have been hesitant or defiant to call a spade a spade. Factional fighting between citizens of the same country is a civil war and this is what we have in Iraq. American forces are not preventing a civil war, but are playing an antagonistic part in one. Outside powers operating in these conditions (US and Israeli involvement in Lebanon comes to mind) do not do anything but fuel the fire because they always must choose sides in the conflict in line with their national agenda. They are not there as simple peacekeepers because they have made allies and enemies out of the various warring factions. The civil war COULD continue or even intensify if we withdrew because the balance of power will shift. However, this is a truth regardless of if our withdrawal comes tomorrow or in 100 years. However, many factors exist (and their effects would be multiplied by ending the occupation) to prevent the continuation of Iraq’s multi-factional civil war. It is highly unlikely the Kurds would decide to secede from the government. They are currently one of the strongest and most supporting factions in the government and seem to enjoy their rather semi-autonomous position (they have their own military semi-legitimate military forces). Kurdish secession would really only become more likely if the Iraqi parliament passes the US-proposed oil sharing law. This is again doubtful because the proposed law is so unpopular with Iraqis. What is more likely to occur is the implementation of a law much better for Iraqis than it is for American oil companies and much more popular with the Kurds. As I have stated in previous comments the government stands to gain a substantial amount of legitimacy from American withdrawal and opposition factions that continue to use violence against Iraqis (who will be their only target) will become increasingly unpopular. Iraqis are sick and tired of the violence and will support the factions (the government) who will bring stability. In order to salvage political power opposition factions will have no choice but either seize the country or become legitimately involved in the political process. No single faction (nor bloc of factions) is currently strong enough to take control of Iraq and pose a dire threat to the government – not even Sadr since he has been undermined by “Iraqi only” security sweeps in Basra and Sadr City. For this reason reconciliation will actually be pushed along by withdrawal rather than hampered by it. Seven years of occupation have gotten the Iraqis no closer to reconciliation because they simply do not have to address the problems with American forces there. For the above reasons, speculation of our withdrawal precipitating a large-scale civil war is just that – speculation. It is unlikely to happen and ending the occupation has a greater chance of compressing the timeline of continued violence in Iraq. The potential for outright genocide is virtually nonexistent. Sunnis are not strong enough and the Shi’a groups are split between loyalist and opposition factions. The Kurdish militia is enough to deter any designs on another Kurdish genocide and they are certainly not posed with the desire to ethnically cleanse Arabs. 10 more years of occupation has the potential to result in 10 more years of multi-factional fighting and civil war without the possibility of political reconciliation. Withdrawal provides the impulse for reconciliation, increased government legitimacy, and a decrease in factional violence.
This is what I was affraid would happen. Josh Kumpf, in his mind, always right and everyone else just does not know enough to compete at his high intellectual level.
As always, the response includes an unwelcomed history lesson followed by "you have no idea what your talking about" pretenses and assumptions. I do not consider continual degrades in character and intelligence to be motivating debate techniques.
I knew this forum would be no better. I have better things to do with my time.
fin.
Ryan:
I do not believe Josh's response was degrading, mean, disrespectful, or demeaning. He simply analyzed your comment and responded. It was not emotional and not once did he attack you, your intelligence, or your knowledge.
"An unwelcome history lesson"? The topic at hand is quite intertwined with history. Josh's post wasn't just for you; it was for the readers as well. I didn't know alot of what he presented, so to me, it was a welcome history lesson. Just because he wrote that down doesn't imply he thought you didn't already know. It was simply pertinent to his argument.
Please stop taking attacks on an argument as personal attacks. I can plainly see that he doesn't always have to be right. He's admitted being wrong many times, and with humility. He stated the facts and his analysis.
Because he disagreed strongly with you, though, you took it as "josh always has to be right and insults my intelligence". This impression is 100% baseless.
(Likewise, my comment is not meant to be mean or condescending towards you at all. I'm stating my opinion, and it shouldn't insult nor compliment your intelligence.)
I'm just a little tired of people taking arguments personally. It isn't personal. It's just the subject.
Dave,
This is old news.
First, like I said previously, I'm upset with the fact that I ever agreed to this discussion. In every type of media forum (e-mail, IM, Facebook, blog) I have been the "dunce" of the conversation. My views are always seen as humorous, religion bias, misinformed, or just plan ignorant. Frankly, I'm tired of it and I have better things to do with my time. So should you.
A debate is where people discuss viewpoints that are seen by many people to a "whole audience," and if you look at Josh's many responses, they are personal attacks on my knowledge/opinion of the subject. That is not a debate Dave.
Second, your "two cents" isn't even worth that. But, if I cared, thnak you for the response.
Post a Comment