It's been said that now that we're there, we need to stay there. I'm speaking of the American military's quasi-control of Iraq. Amidst our administration's flip-flopping policy toward that country--first it was to find and destroy WMDs there, next it was to liberate its people from their dictator, and now it has devolved into creating some form of democratic government no matter the cost, no matter the huge cultural hurdles, and no matter the willingness of its citizens--amidst this, staying there is a sentiment that is voiced confidently by those who have yet to abandon their belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's autocratic-era Iraq.
It's a sentiment spoken too, sometimes in a more resigned tone, by many of those who quietly, secretly came to believe that the French diplomat was on to something when--speaking at the United Nations Security Council hearings months prior to America's preemptive shock and awe siege of Iraq--he warned that winning the war would come swiftly and relatively easily to America, but that winning the peace probably would prove daunting. Back then, a lot of Americans, and not just those of the Bush Administration, were offended by this prediction, and before long California Cabernet Sauvignon sales shot up, while French burgundy sales hit the skids. With dissent came scape-goating, and suddenly the French couldn't be trusted. America turned nasty. Some of us, however, heard a distant voice in the back of our heads, a voice that seemed to grow more urgently whenever we drove past our local V.F.W. clubs, and V.A. hospitals. It was a voice that whispered, Vietnam.
Thousands of military and civilian lives lost, an Iraqi infrastructure in tatters, a foreign dictator overthrown pretty quickly, and one domestic presidential election later, the United States prepares to continue to devote time, money, and blood in what it sees as a long-term investment in Iraq. It's a foreign policy somewhat analogous to Warren Buffet's buy-and-hold stock philosophy. One of the richest men on earth, Mr. Buffet has amassed fortunes because of his long-term view of global economic markets. Over time, he has purchased--and he has kept full and partial ownership of--numerous companies, and he has been well-rewarded for doing so. His strategy is simple: Buy-and-hold. That is to say, never divest, never get out. His is a philosophy of unbridled optimism, the birth-child of historic economic prosperity. At 72, he's never invested during a period of economic depression, so it's no wonder Buffet's an optimist. The current administration's philosophy regarding foreign policy might be viewed similarly--an optimistic one where the good guys can root out "terror" (however we choose to define it) and earn the fear and respect of friends and foes alike. Ours is a philosophy where peace and the perception of homeland security can be achieved at home and abroad on our terms: Invade-and-hold. Besides the White House, there is optimism--soft-spoken optimism, but optimism nonetheless--among Americans who steadfastly believe that we should steadfastly remain in Iraq until we get what we say we want, optimism among Americans who knew from the beginning that coalition armed forces would find Saddam Hussein but would not find any weapons of mass destruction, and optimism among Americans who always understood that the murderous attacks collectively known as the date "9/11" had everything to do with bin Laden and his tribe of faith-based intolerants in Afghanistan, and nothing to do with the people whose country we attack(ed) with full fury. If we had been a country divided about going to war in Iraq, we are now a country united about staying there. In this regard, a lot of us are like Warren Buffet. Invade-and-hold.
But there's a problem. Applying Buffet's wealth-building strategy to foreign policy comes mighty close--at least in appearance--to what our overseas friends and enemies commonly view as imperialism. That the current administration has changed the pretext for going to and remaining in Iraq several times before and after we invaded it lends further credence to foreign charges of American imperialism. When it comes to Iraqi policy, perhaps we should think more like the pragmatic financial advisor Suze Orman and less like Mr. Buffet. Intelligent and simply-spoken, Suze has successfully weathered one of the hugest stock market bubble explosions in history. A sensible woman, she knows that when the house is on fire, it's time to go. Suze advises that if we have stock in one company and if their stock price falls by more than 10%, then we should sell, accept our losses, take a deep breath, and regroup before making our next financial move. Once I didn't do this, and I got burned. I bought shares in a company--it wasn't Enron or Worldcom, but it might as well have been--that initially rose 18%, but then fell to my original purchase price about two months later. I kept. I held. Three months later I was down 40%. I kept. I held. Eight months later, I had lost about 90% of my investment. Finally, I sold my shares of stock, pennies on the dollar, bought a bottle of merlot with what was left of my investment, and downed it. Lesson learned: house fire = fast exit. Now I liquidate my assets in a company when I see that it is tanking. Like me, the United States made a similar, calculated take-and-hold mistake in Vietnam. We stayed. Our losses mounted. Still we held on to the irrational belief that our investment of young American lives in a country that, like Iraq, neither invaded nor threatened us, was worth it. Today, Americans of every political leaning and of every socioeconomic and religious stripe agree that remaining in Vietnam for as long as we did, did not help the Vietnamese or the Americans. It only led to greater casualties. We agree too that the Vietnamese did not follow us home to attack us after we pulled out, a fear a lot of Americans have today about an early Iraq pull-out, and a rationale for not doing so. We fail to recall that the dreaded "global spread of communism" simply never materialized following the fall of Saigon.
If we remain in Iraq and try to establish a voter-elected democratic government of our liking--and the current administration's new mandate includes not a word about a specific time-frame for withdrawing our weary troops from that war-shattered country--we will be moving closer and closer to a blood-soaked quagmire. Perhaps the "Q" has already begun. If we stay, anti-American sentiments will foment (more) within the boarders of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries alike. The mujahideen will continue to arrive in Iraq from across the Muslim world, as they do now, well prepared to kill and be killed. And through our continued occupation of Iraq their numbers will grow. The war in Iraq will become a war of attrition. Vietnam. By staying, by our continued, ironic attempts to install a democratic government in Iraq through the use of force, we shape the Islamic world--we move it away from moderation and toward fanaticism. Staying will place us more at-risk for violence at home and abroad than we can imagine. It will also politically isolate us and further weaken our economy, and not merely because of huge military expenditures. The long-term economic costs of fighting a protracted, preemptively begun, and internationally unpopular losing battle rest upon shifting economic and geo-political alliances which, once established, often remain for extended periods of time. Like when countries form trade partnerships that exclude us. Or like when a country or a union of countries decides it makes no sense for them to back the U.S. Dollar due to our massive debt, and then decides to call our loans due. This may already be happening. The Financial Times of London reported on November 8, 2004, that the Chinese government is rumored to be selling off its U.S. Dollars in favor of the more attractive, more robust Asian currencies. But, if we leave Iraq now, we save American lives immediately. Yeah, we look embarrassed in the short-term. And yes, to some we look weak. Temporarily. And yes, there will be--as there is now--a period of instability in Iraq. Temporarily. But in the long-term the United States will be a stronger, wiser country with solidified relationships abroad. In the long-run Islamic fanaticism will fail to be fueled by our actions. Over time we can focus our efforts at rooting out terrorists in whatever countries they train and hide, and we can stop focusing on the elusive terror in one country. In the long-term, the world will see that we have a powerful and most self-effacing leadership quality--the ability to admit we were wrong.
It seems that too few Americans today strongly support a very early withdrawal from Iraq based upon scant mention of it. This puzzles me. Why? It's that voice again: Vietnam. Of one thing I am sure: just as the current administration could not or would not use the "R" word even when it was obvious to non-economists that the United States was in a recession a few years ago, this same administration will never use the "Q" word to describe what is happening or what will happen in Iraq during their time of power. Flashback: Nixon's Vietnam. Presently, a few of us sit wondering--with respect to our nation's "investment" in Iraq--if we'll be the last investor to cash out.
--BoxerDave
Heavy-handed, but never underhanded.