Sunday, November 27, 2005

What is victory?

When we invaded (sorry, liberated) Iraq, our intent was to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, establish a democracy, and not leave until there was a stable bastion of freedom in the Middle East. A short time back, Congressman Murtha was criticized (later retracted) for demanding a withdrawal from Iraq. Now the Democrats are being accused of wanting to "cut and run" while the Republicans are accused of wanting to "stay the course," despite a lack of tangible progress in Iraq. Strangely, most of those spouting out on one side or the other have no vested interest in what happens in Iraq; instead, they care about spouting out party talking points and declaring the other side ignorant. While this is an admirable trait in some venues (here I'm thinking of a schoolyard with dares and double dares), it's extremely childish for our nation's leaders to engage in such behavior.

Now, in the wake of cut and run talk, often by people who don't really know what it means, we hear that the President intends a withdrawal of forces in Iraq next year. This after the Republicans criticize requests for withdrawal of forces by the Democrats. The Republicans defend this action by saying it was part of the plan all along to withdraw some forces after the elections in Iraq. I don't buy that, to be honest. If that were the real case, then the Republicans could have said as much immediately after Murtha's comments and scored a bit of a coup. Instead, they chose to engage in namecalling and deceit. Now, it's possible that the Congresspeople and republicans who engaged in such behavior didn't know about the plan, but if that's the case, then the Republicans can't now say "that was the plan all along."

So this means it's a victory for the Anti-war and Democrat crowds, right? Not quite. Calling for a withdrawal doesn't mean it's going to happen. That the President indicated he intends to withdraw some forces doesn't mean much, especially if the goals aren't met. In this case, substituting "an election and police force" for a safe, secure bastion of freedom is not a victory. It seems more akin to inviting disaster. Had we not gotten involved at all, exercised some more discretion before invading, then perhaps the Democrats could have claimed a victory, but that didn't happen.

I fear for Iraq after we leave. The situation there isn't as tenuous as many would have us believe - people aren't cowering in trenches every night praying that they don't get bombed. It is, however not as secure as it should be for our withdrawal. I'm afraid that what we've done, more than anything else, is set up a large nation in the middle east for a serious civil war, one that we can't prevent, we can only delay.

2 comments:

Bookworm said...

I continue to cling (blindly?) to the belief that Iraq's geographic preeminence, its size, and its fairly modern infrastructure, made it a perfect place to break the medieval tyranny that grips the Middle East and that provides a perfect breeding ground for the worst kinds of hatreds. I think we make a mistake looking only at Iraq, which is the epicenter of the fighting, but in ignoring huge changes in Lebanon, Afhanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya and even Saudi Arabia. Nothing is easy, and I'm so grateful I live here and not there (althougn, as a Jew, I would be allowed to live there), but I still think we're making important changes despite the difficulties.

English Professor said...

I admire BW's faith, but I don't share it. Hope I'm proved wrong.