The Iraq invasion and occupation has been always on my mind. I had a son deployed in the Gulf during the run up to the war and my other two sons were in the Guard. I knew quite early that they would be headed for a year in a war zone. In discussion after discussion, I was told "It's not that simple." This is a meme that annoyed me from the start and I will expound a bit why.
First it helps to be clear about what was/is being proposed. Since Rep. Murtha's motion of 17 November 2005 (H.J. Res. 73), the main alternative to continuing the occupation indefinitely consisted of withdrawing major combat units, maintaining anti-Qaeda operations and the training of Iraqi Army and police forces. It is very hard to find people who want us out, but would object to training missions or anti-Qaeda operations.
I am unsure what to call those in favor of indefinite occupation. To call them Republicans would dishonor the many Republicans who are in favor of no such thing. I will fall back on Bushies, since they seem to follow our current president wherever he leads. No doubt they wish he would lead them elsewhere, but they will follow him anyway.
To begin with, the plea of complexity implies that Bushies alone are smart enough to understand what is going on. If I was just as bright as Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzalez, I would understand their arguments, but I just happen to fall short, so I should be satisfied that someone smart enough to properly handle these matters is in charge. Having (briefly) watched the leading lights of the Bushies on TV, it is clear that I measure up with enough of them to consider myself able to think this through on my own. As a good Catholic, I understand the obligation to listen attentively to leaders, before deciding that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.
Next is the idea that it isn't simple because I am not as well informed as those I am talking to. After all, hasn't our current vice-president claimed that he had secret knowledge that would justify this administration's activities? Fortunately, in this time, it is surprisingly easy to be well informed (as long as you don't watch Fox Noise Channel). As a librarian, I believe you should read, then read and finally, read some more. Sound bites are misleading, video even more so. Very few pictures are worth a thousand words and even if they are, better get some thousands of words to help put the picture in context. A parent with deployed children is like a parent with a sick child – they will read obsessively about the situation even though they know it probably won't make a difference. There is plenty about the invasion and occupation that remains secret, but little that would argue for continuing it.
Of course, I might be naïve or merely facile in opposing the continued occupation. If so, I share that trait with the Popes (John Paul and Benedict both) and the US Bishops, those starry-eyed dreamers. Also with my favorite military strategist, Thomas P.M. Barnett. His Pentagon's New Map is nothing if not hard nosed and chock full o realpolitik. Like me (and for many of the same reasons), he does not support the recent re-escalation and considers the present administration to be lame ducks that we must survive while hoping to minimize the damage they do. He still thinks that the invasion was a good idea (we part there).
Of course, maybe I would think more clearly if it was other people's children being sent to enforce the occupation. There may be some truth in that and for that I am sorry. In my defense, my sons are all home now. If the occupation does not long outlast the current administration, they will not be redeployed. I will continue to protest and argue, since I know some of what military families go through. Every Blue Star family knows that they could just as easily be a Gold Star family. Nothing enrages me more than someone saying (after four years of war), "Well that death really brought the war home." Apparently, it was all just video games until then.
Now for the things I don't understand, the things that make it not so simple.
If we withdraw, a civil war will break out. I will grant that it may, working on the assumption that one is not already underway. Let's see. Two million have fled the country. Another two million are displaced within the country. More would go, but where to? All the doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. are being targeted and are fleeing. Formerly integrated neighborhoods are being 'cleansed." Baghdad is becoming a series of fortified islands, where you are either Sunni or Shi'a and it is a matter of life or death. The civilian casualties amount to a Virginia Tech shooting daily. The occupation isn't preventing this.
If we leave, things will get worse. Again, the schools are closed, the markets are unsafe for shopping, kidnapping is rampant, crime rules, there is not enough electricity, there is very little oil being pumped and nothing else of value is being produced. Unemployment is at 50% and not decreasing. None of these trends are headed in the right direction. In short, things are already getting worse. Digging the hole deeper will not get us (or Iraq) out of it. Time to stop digging.
If we leave, we will have to fight them in the shopping malls of America. You mean having our feet examined when we fly isn't going to keep the terrorists at bay? We have poured billions into Iraq (and the contractors, who give it back to the Bushies as campaign contributions), but we have done very little to protect the country from additional attacks. Meanwhile, Iraq is both the recruiting poster and training ground for the next generation of terrorists. A tremendous percentage of Middle East Muslims are under 20 and American has been in Iraq for most of their lives.
If we leave, we will prevent the political accommodation between groups that is right around the corner. That accommodation has been around the corner for three years now. It is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that our presence is a positive factor in the equation. True political democracy will probably take fifty years. It did in the US. Longer if you were black or female. Each side in Iraq will end up with a few strong leaders, grow their economy and maybe some day worry about elections. Political freedom follows economic freedom, not the other way around. Right now, we are giving democracy and modernity a bad name, which will hinder political development for decades.
If we leave, Iran will take over. After all, the Iraqis have many reasons to love the Iranians and welcome their influence. Oh wait – they are like the Mideast version of the Packers-Bears, except with tanks and poison gas. Both countries have cemeteries filled with those killed by the other. The Saudis, Kurds, Turks, Syrians and a few others would also have something to say about that. Many groups in Iraq will take any aid to get us out, but will then wipe out those who gave it to them.
But we don't want to politicize the war. Little late for that. Unsurprisingly, every US action in Iraq can be linked to a domestic political need. The rush to war. The rush to elections. The rush to turn over (limited) sovereignty. Wars of choice ARE political and holding our public servants accountable is just good government.
The best argument for the invasion (as made by the aforementioned Barnett) is that we should be working to shrink the Gap and expand the Core. We certainly need to connect countries like Iraq and Iran to the world economy in ways that involve more than oil. Instead we have performed a drive-by regime change, without the follow up that could have made Iraq a model for how Muslim countries should handle the move into the modern world. What we have now is even greater disconnect. No kids in school. An outflow of expertise. No economy. By the standard of connectivity, the occupation is a mixed bag at best. No security = no connectivity.
No doubt there are many more ways in which I am being too simple. I don't watch enough of Meet the Press to hear them all. I am at the end of my time on the soapbox though. BRING THEM HOME. BRING THEM HOME NOW. TAKE CARE OF THEM WHEN THEY GET HERE.