In order to figure out how to remove ourselves from the disaster Bush has wrought, we must first understand why we are in Iraq to begin with. And I don't mean WMD's, or promoting democracy, or any of the other BS "reasons" floated by the Bush Administration. I mean the
real reason we are there. And I think that reason can be stated in one word:
Israel
Before we can "get out" of Iraq, the United States needs to fundamentally reevaluate its relationship with Israel, the content and requirements of that relationship, and the effect of that relationship on the rest of U.S. foreign policy.
First, credit where credit is due: this diary grew out of an earlier
post by PhillyFilly, in which she linked to a Pat Buchanan article that I think is right on point. Yes, I am relying on Pat Buchanan here; he's not always wrong.
Pat was reviewing the neocon screed penned by Perle and Frum about "How to Win the War on Terror." Perle and Frum essentially advocate near-perpetual, serial war until their list of 'enemies' is eliminated (Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Hamas, and Hezbollah). The problem (well, one problem) is that, as Pat puts it, with the exception of North Korea, their enemies list "reads as though it were drawn up in the Israeli Defense Ministry." Because the real neocon agenda has precious little to do with protecting American interests, and a whole lot to do with protecting Israeli interests.
Now, I'm no apologist for Hamas, but it's never attacked America, nor has it shown the capability or desire to do so. Hezbollah, too, seems to have avoided any anti-American terror campaigns recently. As for Iran, isn't it more sensible for us to foster the reformists there, rather than charging in with force? Syria was an ally of ours in the first Gulf War, and offered to return nearly all of the Golan Heights to Israel. Libya has promised to disarm and to allow U.S. inspectors in to verify its disarmament. Saudi Arabia is no fast friend, but if we depose the House of Saud, who fills that power vacuum? Most likely, the void would be filled by hyper-radical Islamic militants. Quite simply, this list of countries and terror groups pose no immediate threat to bona fide U.S. interests, and whatever effect they might have on U.S. interests is not best remedied by attacking them with an eye toward annihilation and colonization (the Perle/Frum formula).
Are the neocons just crazy? Well, no, not exactly. Their plan makes perfect sense once one realizes, as Buchanan points out, that "they want to expand our list of enemies to include Israel's enemies." What better way to help assure the ascendancy of Israel in the Middle East than by establishing a little mini-empire, and crushing the Islamic fundamentalists along the way? We can already see step one--denounce the Palestinian Authority and Arafat as of the same ilk as al-Qaeda, refuse to deal with them, and demand someone else step in to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinans.
And why all this agitation about Syria, and the oft-repeated meme that Iraq's WMD have been smuggled into Syria? One wonders if it might have something to do with Perle's 1996 suggestion to then-PM Netanyahu that the road to Damascus lies through Baghdad. Back then, Perle apparently urged Netanyahu to break the Oslo accords, seize the West Bank, and confront Syria. I, for one, always wondered why on earth Syria became the next likely target after Iraq. Makes no sense from a U.S. perspective; makes plenty of sense on the Israeli side.
In short, the first step out of Iraq is to reject the neocon vision of American-backed puppet democracies serving to intimidate Middle Eastern countries that oppose Israeli interests. Israeli interests and American interests do not always line up, and our government should not seek to further the former at the expense of the latter. Doing so has already cost too many lives, American and Iraqi, and has done great harm to American interests around the world.