Withdrawal from Iraq is wrong. Morally wrong, politically wrong. Bad for Iraq. Bad for us.
Withdrawal, under various guises, is gaining in popularity as the "war" in Iraq becomes less popular. It is popular here at DKos to believe that this is because people are becoming more aware of the fraudulent reasons given for the war itself, but IMO its much simpler than that: sucess there hasn't come, cheap oil has most assuredly not come, and more of our soldiers die every day. The thing is being handled disgracefully. thereisnospoon's impassioned diary on the topic amounts to, basically, "OUCH! This really sucks! Let's leave."
I agree that the GoP and W are probably incapable of getting it right. But a withdrawal from Iraq, whether immediate and complete or phased and limited or something in the middle, would become the opening paragraphs of the last sad chapter for a once great nation (that's us, by the way). An abdication of our responsibility on so great a scale at so critical a moment and in so essential a place on the globe would become a stain impossible to remove.
I have a lot of reasons for this position, but I'll state right up front that the strongest underlying rationale is simple: you broke it, you own it. So if you want to flame away at a broad target, skip the rest and go right to this. Have fun.
I'll also state right at the outset that I am in absolute agreement that this administration is genetically incapable of getting it right, and that some very fundamental changes need to happen here before we can do much good over there. First, of course, is wrenching control of Congress from the most corrunpt and unscrupulous party in the history of our government. Second, some bold and decisive action on the home front. (Actually, that goes first, too.) In order to save this train, we've got to get it under our control, first. I'll try now to outline the "little lower layer" as Ahab called it.
The basic fundament of peace in society is stability. It may be peace without justice, but it is peace nevertheless. Genesis and progression of civil society in the international community proceedes from a cessation of anarchy first. The prinicpal of stability has guided the UN in its international efforts since its inception and has been the touchstone in dealing with all kinds of disputes all over the world. It has led to policies that favor one-state solutions. It is the first role of UN "peacekeepers." Stability is not always just, but it is always preferable to anarchy. The hallmark of the cold war, which made it bearable and possible to survive, was the relative stability that it engendered. This was true even behind the "Iron curtain." I acknowledge that justice did not necessarily accompany it, because I want it to be clear that I do not regard stability as an end point. But it is always preferable to anarchy so long as the progression to justice is in motion.
It would have been justifiable to go to war in Iraq (in my mind) on the basis of setting in motion that progression. A series of disclaimers accompany this statement, of course, including the absolute necessity of broad international consensus. It would not have been impossible to construct such (for W et al, yes, but not as a proposition).
What we have in Iraq is an anarchic state that we are responsible for initiating. No progress toward civil society is possible until that anarchy is stabilized. We are morally responsible for expending any amount of blood and treasure necessary to aid that end. Iraq under Saddam was police state, a one-party state under a brutal dictator. It was not good. But it was stable.
All of the ingredients that made that regime and nation stable have been completely undermined by our invasion and occupation. At this point, Iraq is further from the possibility of a just, civil society than it was under Saddam. Iraq lacks all infrastructure. Its capacity to produce domestic revenue is crippled. Its ability to see to its own basic needs is almost completely eliminated.
We did that. And we have yet to bring that country back to even the primitive level it enjoyed (comparably) under Saddam. At this moment, it is the very opposite of 'value added.'
When considering the result of "getting out, now," the question should not be what the danger to us is, but what is the result within Iraq, for Iraqis, if we get in our helocopters and leave. The answer should be obvious, at least over the next decade or so. If we allow that to happen, we will have firmly abandoned the most fundamental of our founding values: justice, the rule of law, and respect for the individual.
I hear how hollow those phrases ring, even as I type them. But if we are ever to save them for ourselves, first we must commit ourselves to helping the Iraqis to discover them in their own idiom and to preserve them in their own hearts. If we can't do that, having reduced that nation to a state of anarchy, if we find our own comfort more appealing than this obligation, we will have publicly and openly chosen comfort over principle. And since we are a nation built only on principles, we will end.
Of course, it will not be the first time in our history that such a choice has been made. But it might be the last time we have that choice. That it remains a choice is due solely to the world's willingness to regard our history over our current behavior--a willingness that needs new reason.
This debate is about the moral obligation that accompanies bad decisions. We can't undo what we've done. But "getting out, now" will compound the damage, both to Iraq and to the fabric of our nation.
I'm not so foolish as to imagine that things won't get worse before they get better. They will. Before an improvement can even be anticipated, we'll need success in the mid-terms. After that, even more. It could be two years and a new president before meaningful progress can ensue. But getting out is more than just the most comfortable option. It is the most corrupt.