I wrote this first as a response to TheChanMan's
diary. However, this issue is of sufficient importance that the question deserves an extended discussion of its own.
What question is that? Why, the question of whether or not we can better fulfill our humanitarian responsibility to Iraq by remaining in the country, or by withdrawing from it.
Now, I think we can all agree that the U.S. is responsible for the situation in Iraq today. We allowed our untrustworthy President too much leeway; he went in irresponsibly without adequate planning or troops... he destroyed the power structure in an unstable country through his arrogance and incompetence. We created a power vacuum. The nation is broken, and we broke it.
My argument regarding our ultimate responsibility is below the fold.
Because we "broke Iraq," common puritan ethics would suggest that we are responsible for "fixing" the country. American pride requires us to think that we are capable of fixing Iraq.
I would suggest, however, that we are, in fact, incapable of fixing the situation in Iraq. Why? Because our President is incompetent. Current Pentagon leadership--the Neocons--are incompetent. We have already lost the trust of the Iraqis, so the only way for the U.S. to achieve peace in Iraq is by destroying all resistance: murdering the manhood of a nation. We have thus far lacked the political will to dedicate the force necessary to pacify the country this brutally. We lack the political will to face up to the losses we would incur if we went in that completely.
What I'm saying is that you have to look realistically at what is required for us to achieve peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq, and not only are the requirements beyond our current means due to executive incompetence, but they are fundamentally immoral. That is, the only way to do what still has to be done is to subscribe completely to Caligula's doctrine: "Let them hate us so long as they fear us." That is, we have to become the biggest, scariest bullies Iraq has ever seen...and that will be quite a trick, given Iraq's history.
Ultimately, we are talking about instituting a reign of terror within Iraq. (And the U.S. is, in fact, contemplating exactly that when the pentagon analyzes the possibility of creating death squads to hunt down the opposition.) Nothing less will achieve peace as long as we remain in the country, but it would be a Pax Romana, at best: fields sown with salt (read: depleted Uranium and contaminated water); the population decimated, the ability and will of the population to resist completely destroyed.
Is this the responsibility you want?
Or would it, given the circumstances, actually be more moral to step back, recognize that, given the dynamics of the situation, we can only worsen the tension in the country? This isn't simply a hypothetical question: it's a real fact of the American tactic in Iraq: we have used the poor of the majority ethnic group, Shiite, to form the backbone of the Iraqi national guard, and, with them, attacked rebellious cities like Fallujah--which is a Sunni enclave. The tactic has done no end of damage to an already dangerous ethnic situation. Some are saying the tactic makes civil war all but inevitable.
Given all that, can we secure the country?
I don't believe we can.
Given that belief, the only rational decision I can see is that we must withdraw from the country. We must either a) allow a trusted body like the U.N. to do what it can to calm things down and restore some degree of order; or b) just get out and allow the Iraqis to sort things out themselves however they will, including, quite bluntly, through violence and civil war.
If I am correct in my analysis, we have no better alternative to offer, and our time there will only lead to further hostility, a longer lasting internecine antagonism, and deadlier civil war when it finally breaks out.
That is: this is a case, perhaps the first in a long time, when American intervention is the problem, not the cure. We broke the country. We break it further every day we are there. Remaining longer will not fix it. Our ultimate responsibility is to stop worsening the situation. The only way we can do so at this point, is to get out. Therefore, it is our responsibility to withdraw.
The only people who have a chance of fixing the problem are a) the United Nations, and b) the Iraqi people themselves. Unfortunately, Bushmeister will never allow the U.N. a chance to do what it can. He thinks he can do better, and still wants to prove it.
The ultimate colonial arrogance is the assumption that we, the western power, are better qualified to rule the country, determine its future, and secure its peace than are Iraqi nationals. The facts on the ground suggest that this is only the delusion of extreme arrogance, and nothing more.
Does that mean that the situation in Iraq will be any better the day we leave? No. What it means is that we must simply accept that we fucked up unforgiveably, and that we have committed unforgiveable crimes in that country (over 100,000 civilians dead), and that we are no longer in any moral position to criticize whatever the Iraqis do with their country or to one another after we leave. We must accept that we can in no way lessen the damage at this point.
For the ultimate colonial arrogance is the assumption that the situation will get worse because we leave, because the Iraqis are incapable of seeing clearly the value of peace without our patriarchal guidance, because we have a monopoly on democracy and good intentions, because we are a "Christian nation," etc.
To speak only for myself, I am not Christian. I am an atheist, with Jewish ancestry, who went to a Quaker high school. I understand the value of peace, and I understand that it takes a very rare balance of factors to achieve peace through war or to impose it from afar. We do not have an administration capable of providing those factors or that balance.
Despite the fact that I am not a Christian, I would suggest that we have in NO WAY met the standards required for a just war, and our continued presence in Iraq violates those standards further every day.
It is popular for war supporters to bash the post-colonial idea that colonialism, including American colonialism, is purely destructive, but, in this instance, the proof is staring us in the face every day.
It may be that with another administration, the results of the invasion would have been more palatable, but another administration wouldn't have been so foolish or immoral as to invade in the first place.
There remains no moral alternative but to withdraw.