Friday, March 9, 2007

The Iraq Paradox

It isn't a stretch to say that Iraq is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the United States today. In fact, it wouldn't be outrageous to say that Iraq is one of the biggest domestic policy issues facing the U.S. today. The question facing the new Congress is what to do about Iraq. Do we "cut and run"? Do we set our exit criteria? Do we prepare to stay there for the long haul? Or do we just make Iraq the 51st state and be done with it?

In my opinion, Iraq was a huge mistake that will tarnish the Bush legacy for generations to come. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you have to admit that the Bush administration's actions leading up to the war were highly questionable, bordering on impeachable. Whether or not they manipulated or fabricated that intelligence data is up for debate, but AT BEST they were incompetent in the way they interpreted this data. To compound their mistake, they have changed their tune to say that the justification for war was to topple a dictator and bring democracy to the region. That, of course, is ridiculous given the fact that there are so many other dictators to whom we have turned a blind eye. It is clearly a lame attempt to hide the fact that their original justification didn't pan out.

After reading the above paragraph, you probably think I am some sort of bleeding heart liberal or something. However, I consider myself to be a libertarian who was once a registered Republican but who is now unaffiliated with any party. What I really am is a person who calls them like I see them, regardless of the party involved. If the situation had been reverse and it had been the Clinton administration who began this war, you can be darn certain that Republicans would be standing on every street corner screaming about how morally corrupt the Democrats are for dragging us into this conflict based upon a questionable justification. If you think otherwise then you are a part shill or just plain ignorant.

As an aside, the biggest problem I have with politics today is that politicians, for the most part, seem more concerned with positioning themselves and their parties as the "good guys" and the other party as the "bad guys". If one party said "black", the other would immediately come out with a stern rebuke of "white". If the party came out the next week with a press release of "white", the other would change their tune and sing the praises of "black". Ocassionally, one party will come out with some diatribe about how politicians have to put aside the rhetoric and come together for the good of the country. Usually, though, that message is spoken by the minority party who desperately wants to become relevant again. A few years down the road when they are the majority again, those high-minded ideals of inclusion and such are thrown out the window. The whole thing is quite sickening.

Anyway, back to the main point of this posting, which is Iraq. As much as I detest the war and how we got involved in it, I am faced with a problem. On the one hand, this is a war that we shouldn't have gotten ourselves into in the first place. On the other hand, now that we are at war, "cutting and running" seems like it would do more harm than good at this point. That is what I call the "Iraq Paradox" - we shouldn't be there in the first place but now that we are there, we have to stay.

If the U.S. were to leave Iraq, there is no telling what type of chaos would fill the void that we would be leaving behind. Without our troops policing the country and propping up the government there, it is possible that factional fighting would break out between the Shiites and Sunnis. Afters years of oppression under the Sunni minority, it isn't beyond the realm of posibility that the Shiites will take the opportunity for some payback. It is also possible that Iran would step in and install a fundamentalist regime sympathetic to them, or even invade Iraq outright. It is possible that Al-Queda would take advantage of the chaos and set up a base of operations there. The bottom line is that the situation would be unstable and the outcome of that instability would likely leave the region worse off than when the U.S. first invaded. For all of Saddam's faults (and they were many), he was "the devil we knew" and he was pretty much contained within his own borders. Now that he has been toppled, "the devil we don't know" may end up being worse and we may not be able to contain that devil.

So what is the solution then? In the near term, I think we are obligated to keep a military presence there until some sembalance of law and order can be established that has at least a decent chance of filling the power vacuum. How long will that be? Who knows? However, "cutting and running" right now doesn't seem like it would do anyone any good.

No comments: