With more Republican presidential candidates announcing they're entering the 2008 race, several of them have invoked President Lincoln's name in speeches regarding Iraq. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about President Lincoln to have an educated guess on what his opinion of fixing the Iraq problem would be, and I believe its safe to say that Gingrich and Brownback, two Republicans who have thrown his name around, do not either.
But the references to Lincoln, have led me to contrast the rise of the U.S. with the struggle of Iraq.
U.S. - Initiated our own revolution. Fought our own revolution ourselves (pretty much had it already won by the time the Frenchies showed up).
Moral of the story - We wanted it. Was willing to die for it. And we took it.
Iraq - We invaded. Overthrew their leader. And told them to enjoy their revolution, they had won.
Moral of the story - We tried to thrust it down their throat, without any kind of domestic "patriots" to lead the way. You can't lead a revolution for another group. They have to want it and take it themselves.
U.S. - Fought our own civil war. Minor interference from outsiders, but we fought for ourselves.
Moral of the story - Because we were the ones fighting, that made what we were fighting for all the more meaningful. And we weren't going to lose it.
Iraq - We are fighting a large part of their civil war for them.
Moral of the story - They can sit back, and watch. Be spectators (who occasionally get blown up going to work) without actually picking up a gun and fighting for themselves. Why should they? They have U.S. soldiers to die in their place.
One of President Johnson's former advisors has proposed a new strategy for Iraq. His (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) thoughts were, we pull our military completely out of Baghdad, and all of central Iraq. Place our military completely on the border of Iran and Syria. Lock the border down. No one comes in. Allow the various factions in Iraq go at it. Fight until their is a winner, with no interferrence from the U.S. government. Make the Iraqi's earn it.
Yes, there of course will be thousands of innocents caught in the crossfire. But that is no different from our own civil war, and frankly no different than what is happening today in Iraq. But we have always been a better country for it.
And this is where my Star Trek reference comes in. In season three of The Next Generation, episode 11, The Hunted (no I don't have that memorized, I got it from Wikipedia), the Enterprise has been tasked with investigating a civilization, to determine whether it should be admitted into the Federation. The nation has problems with a class of military soldiers whom they discarded years before, as they had no need for them any longer. When the soldiers escape from their confinement the nation demands that the Enterprise assist in saving their civilization from ruin.
Captain Picard: We have everything we need for our report. Your prisoner has been returned to you. You have a decision to make... either try to force them back or welcome them home. In your own words, this is not our affair. We cannot interfere with the natural course of your society's development and I'd say it's likely to develop significantly during the next several minutes.
And at the end of the episode:
William T. Riker: Success, Captain?
Jean-Luc Picard: Number One, note in your report that if the government
of Angosia survives the night, we will offer Federation
assistance in the efforts to reprogram their veterans.
William T. Riker: And if the government doesn't survive?
Jean-Luc Picard: I have a feeling they will choose to.
And if the Iraqi government chooses to survive they will be stronger as well.