For the last week or so we have been reading about Cindy Sheehan, who is spending her vacation outside of Mr. Bush's "ranch" while he enjoys his 33 day vacation inside (33 days?). Bush hides from Ms. Sheehan claiming that we must stay the course in Iraq, and just outside of his camp sits Ms. Sheehan arguing that we need to simply get out of Iraq. The reality, of course, is they are both right. I'll exlain:
The only difference between the two options is that Ms. Sheehan appreciates the cost of this folly as she has borne it and has brought the issue of "costs" into the argument. Mr. Bush hasn`t yet talked to his accountant and like most spendthrifts doesn't want to know the costs until he has run out of political capital. The unfortunate thing is that this is the debate we should have had before we invaded rather than after. Perhaps if we had Ms. Sheehan's son would might still be alive.
Ms. Sheehan is right to question whether her son's death and those of 1,846 other Americans was ultimately in vain. How can we ask mothers like Ms. Sheehan to understand that their son died for a reason when the reason for the war changes at the whim of some politico? One minute it is weapons of mass destruction, then its Saddam`s a bad man, then its we need to give Iraq democracy, and then its we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. With every new reason the war becomes all the more nonsensical. So, I fear Ms. Sheehan is right to question whether her son died in vain.
Conversely, Mr. Bush is wrong to think that this war is anything but a total screw up. The costs of this war in lives, money and American credibility far outweigh any benefits we could have derived. At this point, the best we can hope for is that Iraq balkanizes into three states with at least one of them having a strong Iranian influence - and that`s the best case scenario. That isn't worth one American live and we would have been better off if we simply waited for Saddam died. But, unfortunately, what is done is done and we need to see how to get out of this mess, and that's the real rub, because there is no answer. It is either Mr. Bush`s "stay the course" and hope the weight of American military wears the insurgency down before he runs out of political capital, or it's Ms. Sheehan's "get out now" and hope Iraq doesn`t become a failed state.
Mr. Bush is right to say that if we leave Iraq today, the country will likely devolve into Civil War and might become the failed state we so fear, just like the one we originally intended on fixing - does anyone remember Afghanistan? So, we leave Iraq at the risk that Iraq becomes the failed state we had hoped to eliminate. Somewhat ironic, isn't it? But there it is. I know, some of you are saying, well Iraq will turn to anarchy whenever we leave whether it be today or in five years. Well, this is quite possibly true.
So, there you have it. If we leave as Ms. Sheehan suggests, look for anarchy and a failed state. And if we stay as Mr. Bush says? Well, look for more American deaths at the rate of 2.3 American per day, and possibly anarchy and a failed state down the road. What a total bungle.
Frankly, Ms. Sheehan shouldn't be picketing to get America out of Iraq, because Mr. Bush isn't going to change. The only way we get out of Iraq is to oust Mr. Bush and his religious zealots, which they deserve for having put America into this horrible situation.