I've tried, I've tried to listen to Democrats talk about this aspect of the war in Iraq and accept it is politically expedient, it's something that will convince the average American, I've rationalized it and justified it to myself. And it just doesn't work. It still sticks in my throat and gags me.
I'm not an expert on foreign affairs; hell I'm not even an expert on local New York City affairs. I don't know all the history of Iraq, the various factions, Sunni, Shiite, all that.
But when I hear Democratic politicians justify pulling out of Iraq by saying the Iraqis need to step up, need to take responsibility, that whole meme, it just hurts my brain.
This is difficult for me to put into words, why I am so strongly affected by this politicial tactic. It appeals to Americans, I guess, the notion that we got rid of Saddam Hussein and now there's a big civil war and why should we be in the middle of it? But it also implies that we had nothing to do with that civil war, that we had nothing to do with creating the conditions that led to that civil war. And we all know better. We all know that is not true.
I'll try to make it clearer. The kind of rhetoric I'm referring to doesn't say it outright, but it implies, in my mind, whenever it talks about how the Iraqis need to solve their own problems -- that somehow those problems had nothing to do with us. Oh there's all the speeches about how Bush fucked everything up, how he failed in so many ways, not enough troops, cooked up intelligence, all that. But there's one fuck-up that draws a very clear conclusion that doesn't get mentioned very much. And as much as I think we need to get the hell out of Iraq, as much as I fundamentally agree with these very same politicians on all their other pronouncements about leaving Iraq, that implication keeps bothering me.
When we invaded Iraq, we pretty much destroyed the existing political infrastructure. Civil servants under Saddam Hussein were considered the enemy. Trouble is, we had no mechanism to replace them, and thus the machinery of government was also destroyed -- and never replaced. Let me say that again -- it was never replaced.
So what could have happened? When there is this kind of vacuum, is it so difficult to understand that those who crave power would be the first to fill it? That those who had long standing hatred towards others would be the first to use the "chaos" of war to settle their own vendettas -- and in the absence of a working civic infrastructure, be able to get away with it?
How can our politicans imply that this civil war has nothing to do with America's actions in Iraq? I think we should leave -- oh I definitely think we should redeploy. But I can't swallow the lie that the civil war is the Iraqis doing and not ours. We created the circumstance. We destroyed their civic infrastructure. Frankly, we destroyed their country.
I guess that's too bitter a pill for our fellow citizens to swallow. We like to think of ourselves as virtuous, as the good guys. And perhaps our Democratic politicians, when they say that we need to "let the Iraqis know they have to step up to the plate" know this will reverberate among Americans who otherwise would support Bush's war.
But I can't turn away from that bitter pill, for it contains the truth. We didn't just destroy their country, we are now trying to tell ourselves that we need to leave Iraq because they are so barbaric as to have descended into civil war, into religious hatreds, all that.
I don't know if I've put this well enough to be understood. I'm not an expert on military tactics or foreign affairs. But it's a lie, I feel, and I feel it strongly, to give the impression that we did not cause this civil war, that we are not responsible for it. Because we are.