Reframing Iraq: An Alternate Path

I agree that there are serious and compelling reasons to withdraw troops now (the Edwards option or the more stepped Murtha option), but I believe it is psychologically difficult to define a national course as a negative – (Rove has taken linguistic advantage of this time and time again); I, therefore, propose that we open a new national conversation that allows for withdrawal of troops within the framework of a new role for the US in Iraq.

Bush Has Lost The War
I was curious about Bush’s latest attempt at ‘course correction’ or ‘change in direction’ in Iraq or, the latest attempt by Mr Rove or Mr Cheney or the NeoCons for Mr Bush to appear to remain a bold, manly ‘man of action’ who has not actually and practically lost his War.  Joe Lieberman was on television this Sunday morning again trying the old (pre 2006 midterms) refrain of ‘Support the President and we go on to Victory or else you’re for Defeat.’  Interesting to me is how the Bush folks can frame this as an unequivocal Win/Lose proposition to attack critics of the War but frame another way – "We aren’t winning but we aren’t losing" – to explain their failure. News Flash:  Bush has already Lost the American War in Iraq.  

The Current Reality
Let me say, from the outset, that I am not an expert in the military or Middle East history or politics, so my opinion is simply that, a humble and perhaps not fully considered opinion.  I believe that Iraq is already in a civil war, and the country is (almost) already in partition.  The Kurds have a relatively stable (and so far, US-friendly) autonomous region (with an Iranian diplomatic outpost); the Shiites has a relatively stable southern region (with Iranian political, religious and financial support); and the Sunnis are fleeing to the Al Anbar region.  There are some small and major areas of overlap that are in intense dispute and are these are the centers for the explosive displays of civil war.  The Iraq Central Government, an odd construct of the NeoCons, has little power and no credibility with anyone except the Bush administration but only when it suits them.  So what is the purpose and function of a US military presence in Iraq?  Were it not for the fact that the Bush government unleashed Pandora’s Box by destabilizing the factions with a poorly planned and unwarranted invasion and the incidental toppling of the dictator Hussein, we would not have US troops on the ground.  

The NeoCon Question
As a critic of the War and an early opponent (along with my fellow Poets Against the War) I do think it is, however, important to address those compelling questions about the impact of withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  The Bush loyalists and NeoCons continue to press the question of "What happens if we leave?" which they answer with "A civil war of massive proportions resulting in genocide and destabilization of the region; so we must support the President."  

Reframing the Question
Rather than approach this question with the frame of "What happens if we leave?" I suggest that we consider the issue in a slightly different way: "What should our national conversation be about our interests in Iraq if we were not currently mired there and not responsible for the initial destabilization?  What are our national or moral interests in the people of the region?  How might we best address these issues?  What should we do?"  

Our International Obligations
Let me state that as a proponent of US military presence in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc, I am not an isolationist.  I do believe that we, as the most powerful nation currently on the earth, have an obligation to use our might to protect victims of genocide.  We already have a model for this - as a Peacekeeping Force working with other countries of the world and a region to protect the lives of civilians.  Peacekeeping suggests both a focus on civil order versus on "winning a War" and on a collaborative effort with the UN and with regional entities; "Victory" is defined as an end to genocide, and containment of violent, terroristic, attacks against civilians, so that civil government or governments can form.  This also suggests the prosecution of War Crimes.    

A New Role for the US in Iraq
I suspect that when we withdraw, if we do without an alternate frame for our involvement in the region, we may hamstring ourselves in a way that limits our humanitarian, economic, political and military options.  If we can pursue a national conversation about rethinking and reframing our obligations and interests in the region, perhaps we can find a more reasonable alternative to "Stay The Course version 20.0".  I agree that there are serious and compelling reasons to withdraw troops now (the Edwards option or the more stepped Murtha option), but I believe it is psychologically difficult to define a national course as a negative – (Rove has taken linguistic advantage of this time and time again); I, therefore, propose that we consider a new role for the US in Iraq – that we pursue a diplomatic UN/ regional course that allows for US participation in a force of international Peacekeepers.  I am not so foolish to suggest that this is an easy alternative, just an alternative.  I suspect that as part of a UN Peacekeeping force, we can quickly and dramatically reduce the size of our military presence (with an increase in international peacekeepers) while ensuring that we are not party to an unfettered genocide.  This creates a different role and expectation for our US military in Iraq from enemy to protector – I recognize, painfully, that this still puts Americans at risk of harm and death, but I do believe that our military is best when it protects the innocent, not just when it ‘beats up on the bad guys.’  This also offers our country an alternate path to our how we can act in Iraq, and a way to be part of an international solution - not simply as a primary combatant in an intractable, festering, murderous War.  

Let the conversation begin!

•  NY Time Today

  There are no really satisfying answers in Iraq, since all of the remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others, and Mr. Bush has come up with possibly the worst. He would mortgage thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain.

  The decision is not Victory or Defeat.

  It is Worse or Better.

  Bush's plan will make things Worse.

  In six months things will be much much Worse if we follow this course.

  by MediaFreeze on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:04:32 PM PDT

  •  I agree that Bush's course of mindlessly adding

    troops without any justification other than as a some "course to Victory" is ridiculous and bound for failure - failure for the Iraqis and bound to increase the death toll for military types and for civilians.  Clearly I am interested in some path that protects civilians.  I believe that the way that we withdrew from Vietnam (which I supported) left our nation unable or unwilling to respond to the genocide in Cambodia.  It was left to the Vietnamese to invade Cambodia to stop the genocide by deposing Pol Pot - an invasion, at the time, that was roundly criticized by most Americans, including many on the left (Jane Fonda denounced the Vietnamese).  I don't believe we should have stayed in Vietnam, but I believe we should have returned to Cambodia to stop the genocide.  It is to our national shame that we did not.  And again in Rwanda, and Darfur, and so on and so on...

    Certainly, I wish that we were not in Iraq.  I opposed it from the start. But we created the conditions for the destabilization of the country by Bush's decision to invade, so the country is now destablized and will become more so, so what do we do?  My questions come from a belief that we have a moral obligation to protect civilian non-combatants, especially if we are the precipitating cause of the chaos.  

    by Uncle Moji on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:24:44 AM PDT