Amidst all this brouhaha about timetable this and withdrawal that, many seem to have forgotten the little country we invaded known as Iraq.
As Lieberman goes down in Connecticut, and Democrats (and the public at large for that matter) begin to clamor for withdrawal, the fate of this important nation hangs in the balance. Too bad no one cares about this.
The arguments for withdrawal, including "We aren't doing any good now," or "We shouldn't have been there in the first place," or "Mission accomplished" (whatever mission that may be), are short-sighted. More importantly, withdrawal will leave us in a worse position, especially in such a crucial region as the Middle East.
If we withdraw (via timetable or teleportation or whatever), it may appear as if the problem is no longer ours to deal with, but that certainly won't be the case. The goal of the current military operation, whatever it may be, should not be to survive for a year so that we can leave ASAP; it should be to secure a stable Iraq, whatever the costs. The Bush Administration screwed up (to say the least)─ we shouldn't have been there, we should've had more troops, we should've known more about the resistance movement. But now, the administration, and this nation, must suck it up and pay the cost of these blunders.
Withdrawing would only exacerbate what currently exists, a civil war. Without a secure Iraq, you won't have a secure Middle East (even with some semblance of peace in Lebanon and Israel), and essentially, Iran wins. Everyone has already said that the winner in the War in Iraq is Iran; withdrawal cements this assertion. An unstable Iraq (without a U.S. presence) will quickly fall into Iran's hands. Could Saudi Arabia be next? I'm not sure. But don't think for a second that Saudi Arabia and others won't take protective measures to prevent such an event from occurring─ I'm sure we'd all like to see an arms race in the Middle East. And if Iran has an ally (or subordinate) in Iraq, and a friend (for lack of a better term) in Hezbollah, I'm sure Israel would feel very secure. A stable Iraq, while not necessarily in lock-step with the U.S., probably won't be in Iran's back pocket either (besides, we'd probably have a better chance of wielding influence if we successfully rebuilt the country). Yes, Iraq's leader did recently say he supported Iran's nuclear ambitions, but this is of course in a government where the Sunnis carry little to no influence. If things were to become more stable, more democratic, then there might be a change in this stance (Sunnis may be able to stomach dealing with Shia in their own country; supporting Iran is a whole `nother story).
And forget the realpolitik argument if you want, and lets talk morals. How can you leave such a country devastated? How can you leave a country where murder and kidnappings are rampant, where children starve daily, where anything resembling of a normal life no longer exists? To be insensitive about all of this would be a disaster in our fight to win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East, let alone any other skeptics around the world.
Of course, the reason why you aren't hearing this more is because we all know what winning involves: an increase in troop levels, at the very least. It also includes calling for support from nations bordering Iraq (an Iraq that's too unstable isn't necessarily a good thing for Iran either) and from our allies as well. This would involve the U.S. sucking up its ego and admitting mistakes (we don't do that well).
What bothers me most is that politicians, talk show hosts, and bloggers (both Democrat and Republican) have made this a black-and-white issue: you either stay the course or withdraw. I haven't heard legitimate alternatives that won't necessarily screw Iraq over─ there may be a few, but those voices are certainly being drowned out by the noise made by others.
I already know some of the responses I'm going to get: "Easy for you to say, you aren't the one fighting," or "Well you don't have any relatives there," and the like. My first inclination is to say that well the deaths of the tens of thousands of Iraqis should at least be worth something; if not individually, then collectively, they have to be worth just as much as the more than 2,000 deaths of U.S. soldiers in the war. The idealistic part of me also says that building a stable democracy will probably give value and meaning to those lives lost.
Maybe those answers aren't enough for those who have lost someone in the war (although what could be enough?). But I'm sure the families of the Iraqi victims won't like the idea that their relatives died in vain too.