RSS
Home
Why we will lose Iraq
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Yeah, I don't like it either. But look at the scenario: We're trying to take a 12th century society and turn it into a political suburb of the US system. The majority of people in this area (having not gone through small events like, say, The Reformation and The Enlightenment) have no concept whatsoever of the compromises and debate needed to make a representative democracy work. I could, and will, go on. But bottom line? Iraq is already lost and probably Afghanistan as well.
Won't go into the reason we should not be there (aside from the fact that WMDs posed no threat to anyone, as corrupt dictators like Saddam like their corrupt dictatorships and don't want them turned into charred lifeless holes in Asia Minor. which is what would have happened if he used WMDs on anyone outside his borders. not to mention Israel's Arrow ABM system would have shot those antiquated Soviet-era missiles out of the sky.). Doesn't matter. We are there. And the men and women who have served have done so with the utmost courage and distinction. However, their sacrifices have been for what?
To bring democracy to Iraq?
Let's say you're a chaplain in the military. You have to explain to grieving loved ones of brave service members why someone is not coming back. You will, if you're smart, tell them their loved one paid that price for the reason men have died in war forever. For the guy in the next foxhole. But can you, in good faith, tell them that the supreme heroism they gave their country was not for their country, but for the people of Iraq? Is the life of one American Marine worth a different form of government in Iraq?
WWII and The Cold War were different. The threats posed there were direct and directed at the United States. This has not been the case in Iraq.
This is what, tragically, will happen. The current president will dither and we will lose initiative on the battlefield. Our allies will see this and act accordingly. In both Iraq and Afghanistan we will leave only a modicum of security for our client governments when we pull out our troops. There will be a decent interval between that period and either an Islamofascist coup, Iranian invasion or a fairly legit election where a government is voted in that absolutely hates our guts. When our allies in those nations ask for help, we will turn a blind eye (or Congress will refuse to fund it), as our nation will have become disgusted with the whole matter.
Pessimistic? Yeah. Happy about it? No.
But I just don't see how we can transfer modern Western European concepts of government in the long term to nations who clearly do not want them. Are there people who yearn to be free there? Yes. Enough to outvote or out-influence the vast majority who merely want basic security and traditional Islamic social norms and will trade most things, including an alliance with US and/or democracy, to get them? No.
If we want to prevent the oil fields falling into unfriendly hands, fine. That is in the US national interest. However, intervention in the domestic political system of another nation is simply not in our nation's legitimate interest. Of interest to individuals? Of course and resistance to tyranny, even if it does not threaten us, should be encouraged. Just not with the lives of the US military.
When we build up the hopes of some foreign allies who think it should be, and then leave them in the lurch when a dithering president folds or when we get tired of the battle, it is a vicious betrayal of innocents. It reminds one of the 1970s era adage that to be an enemy of the US is a bad thing. But to be its ally can be positively dangerous.
Related Articles:
Comments
