overthebow
Laugh-a while-a you can-a
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Posts
- 11,166
I saw this on line at The New Republic and, as much as I don't want to admit it, I think the author is right. It is time to get out of Iraq.
----------
THE CASE FOR GETTING OUT OF IRAQ
by Gregg Easterbrook
The United States invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and search for banned weapons. Hussein is now deposed, and no banned weapons were present. So why don't we leave?
This simple observation--why don't we leave?--is the missing question of the Iraq debate. Americans should stop obsessing about the assigning of blame for prewar errors or current attempts to micromanage Iraqi affairs. It is imperative that debate be refocused on the question that exceeds all others in magnitude: Why don't we leave?
I accept that the Bush administration legitimately believed banned weapons were present in Iraq. Most analysts believed this, Bill Clinton believed it, the Labor prime minister of the United Kingdom believed it--the list of credible people and organizations who believed this goes on at length. There is no shame in believing something that turns out to be wrong, so long as you admit being wrong. Had Saddam still possessed a banned-weapons program, especially an atomic-bomb program, the invasion of Iraq would now be seen as fully warranted. Remember, even France said that if banned weapons were found, it would endorse and join the war. Today we are relieved to know that Iraq did not possess banned weapons. So why don't we leave?
Similarly, I accept that the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny was a noble goal. Bad as the situation looks right now, there remains the chance history will praise the United States and United Kingdom for freeing Iraq from totalitarianism and, perhaps, setting in motion democracy in the Arab world. But the dictator has been removed and the liberation offered. So why don't we leave?
Perhaps the idea of simply leaving Iraq is not being discussed because it would be seen as some kind of failure of machismo, and no politician ever wants it thought he is afraid to let others die. But we're going to leave Iraq at some point; departure is inevitable. We should leave before yet more damage is done.
For a generation, commentators have been sniggering over the 1966 declaration by George Aiken, a Republican senator from Vermont, that the solution to the Vietnam War was to "declare victory and get out." Supposedly this sort of thing is said only by the faint of heart. Yet the senator was right--and the United States ultimately did exactly as Aiken advised, though not till nine more years of suffering passed.
Had the United States left Vietnam in 1966, it is likely that fighting would have continued; that the Saigon government would have fallen; that there would have been a horrible phase of Communist retribution against those who had sided with the United States; that later the country would have become peaceful and started moving toward democracy. That is to say, had we left Vietnam in 1966, it's likely that what would have happened is what happened when we left in 1975--just nine years sooner, with tens of thousands of American lives saved, along with hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian lives. As regards Iraq, at some point the United States will announce that its objectives are achieved ("declare victory") and depart; then whatever is going to happen to that nation will happen, regardless of U.S. plans. Dragging out the inevitable departure will only add to the toll of lives.
Asked why we don't simply leave Iraq, American and British officials surely would say that chaos would ensue. How would that differ from the condition of today? Chaos reigns in several of the nation's cities, gunfire and explosions everywhere; bombs detonate regularly in the capital. Perhaps if Western forces departed Iraq, the anarchy and infighting would get worse. But going house-to-house trying to kill everyone in Iraq who favors chaos is a losing game. The United States military will never succeed at this assignment: no military could, no matter how much power it possessed.
Ultimately, only Iraqis themselves can return their country to stability, and this will not happen until Western forces leave. Once American and British forces leave Iraq, there will be social stigma against those who want chaos; today, there is some admiration. Imagine that a powerful Muslim army was occupying the United States and said its only purpose was to assist the American people. Imagine that the Muslim occupiers truly did want to help, and were building schools and hospitals to prove their good intent. Nevertheless there would be bedlam in the streets, American rebels would be sabotaging the occupier and setting off bombs under the Muslim army's trucks; the people causing this chaos would be admired, and America could return to peacefulness only when the Muslim army left.
Just look at the images from Iraqi cities: Almost every day U.S. forces are blowing up buildings, smashing homes, dropping bombs in civilian areas. Surely more damage has been done to civilian areas of Iraq, and to civilian daily life, in the 16 months since the invasion ended than during the attack. Polls of Iraqis show that for the first six months or so most were glad the United States had come to depose their dictator. Since then, hostility to the American presence has steadily risen, not only because Iraqis are sick of seeing foreign troops on their streets, but because with each passing week, U.S. forces bring more destruction to the cities of Iraq.
If we remain, the U.S. military will continue to cause destruction in civilian areas of Iraq: Our forces have no choice in this as they must protect themselves, and now face the dilemma fighting a foe that hides among civilians. Bear in mind that no military has ever solved this dilemma. Not the United States in Vietnam, not Israel in the West Bank, not the Soviet Union in Afghanistan--no military has found a satisfactory solution to the problem of conducting combat operations in civilian areas without killing the wrong people and making the law-abiding majority despise the occupier. The only technique that has ever worked in the modern era to stop an insurgence against an occupying power is the imposition of total dictatorship, as for instance practiced by the Nazis in World War II. Obviously the United States cannot use this tactic. That means the U.S. military attempt to stamp out Iraqi resistance is not likely to succeed, no matter how bravely and admirably U.S. forces fight. The Iraqis are resisting a foreign invader; even George W. Bush now calls the United States an "occupying power." History teaches that foreign invaders who attempt to crush nationalist resistance always fail, while engendering hatred among the occupied country's law-abiding majority.
Not leaving also insures continued loss of life--and it is alarming how little Americans are talking about the deaths, ours and theirs, occurring in Iraq. During the invasion of Iraq, 139 American military personnel died: but the invasion was a fight we knew we would win, and one with two strong justifications: the desire to depose a dictator and the belief that Iraq possessed banned weapons. Since the May 2003, end of invasion-related fighting, 832 American military lives have been lost in a fight we may lose and that lacks a rationale. Those soldiers who died in the attack to depose Saddam and find banned weapons died in just cause. Those dying in Iraq today die for--what, exactly? Why are we in Iraq at this point? Surely not because we are so foolish as to think we can dictate events!
Iraqi civilian deaths now number into the thousands, perhaps as high as about 13,000. While U.S. and British combat units have conducted themselves with exemplary honor in Iraq, taking every precaution to avoid noncombatants, it is simply impossible to fight in urban areas and not sometimes kill the wrong people. We have now killed considerably more innocent Iraqi civilians than the number of innocent American civilians who died on September 11. And though Western forces do not intend to kill civilians, while the murderers of 9/11 did intend this crime, from the standpoint of the dead it's all the same. Initial American motives in entering Iraq may have been just, but it is dishonorable that there is now essentially no discussion in American politics of the fact that our continuing presence in Iraq is causing Iraqi civilians to die.
If the Western nations left Iraq, the country might stabilize and move toward democracy, and then the United States invasion would be seen as a triumph of idealism. Or bad things might happen. There might be awful sectarian violence; Iran might annex much of Iraq, creating a regional superpower hostile to Israel; the Baath Party might reassert itself; there could be all kinds of negative consequences. But there will be the risk of either happy or unhappy consequences whenever we leave--as, ultimately, we will. By delaying the inevitable day of departure, the United States intensifies Arab and Muslim hatred of its policies; further diminishes its standing with friendly nations; makes Washington seem to care more about oil companies than about the lives of U.S. soldiers; insures further Iraqi civilian deaths that will be on our conscience; and costs more American soldiers their lives, while continuing to waste vast amounts of money that could instead be spent rebuilding what we have destroyed.
The United States invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and search for banned weapons. Hussein is now deposed, and no banned weapons were present. So why don't we leave?
Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor at TNR.
----------
THE CASE FOR GETTING OUT OF IRAQ
by Gregg Easterbrook
The United States invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and search for banned weapons. Hussein is now deposed, and no banned weapons were present. So why don't we leave?
This simple observation--why don't we leave?--is the missing question of the Iraq debate. Americans should stop obsessing about the assigning of blame for prewar errors or current attempts to micromanage Iraqi affairs. It is imperative that debate be refocused on the question that exceeds all others in magnitude: Why don't we leave?
I accept that the Bush administration legitimately believed banned weapons were present in Iraq. Most analysts believed this, Bill Clinton believed it, the Labor prime minister of the United Kingdom believed it--the list of credible people and organizations who believed this goes on at length. There is no shame in believing something that turns out to be wrong, so long as you admit being wrong. Had Saddam still possessed a banned-weapons program, especially an atomic-bomb program, the invasion of Iraq would now be seen as fully warranted. Remember, even France said that if banned weapons were found, it would endorse and join the war. Today we are relieved to know that Iraq did not possess banned weapons. So why don't we leave?
Similarly, I accept that the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny was a noble goal. Bad as the situation looks right now, there remains the chance history will praise the United States and United Kingdom for freeing Iraq from totalitarianism and, perhaps, setting in motion democracy in the Arab world. But the dictator has been removed and the liberation offered. So why don't we leave?
Perhaps the idea of simply leaving Iraq is not being discussed because it would be seen as some kind of failure of machismo, and no politician ever wants it thought he is afraid to let others die. But we're going to leave Iraq at some point; departure is inevitable. We should leave before yet more damage is done.
For a generation, commentators have been sniggering over the 1966 declaration by George Aiken, a Republican senator from Vermont, that the solution to the Vietnam War was to "declare victory and get out." Supposedly this sort of thing is said only by the faint of heart. Yet the senator was right--and the United States ultimately did exactly as Aiken advised, though not till nine more years of suffering passed.
Had the United States left Vietnam in 1966, it is likely that fighting would have continued; that the Saigon government would have fallen; that there would have been a horrible phase of Communist retribution against those who had sided with the United States; that later the country would have become peaceful and started moving toward democracy. That is to say, had we left Vietnam in 1966, it's likely that what would have happened is what happened when we left in 1975--just nine years sooner, with tens of thousands of American lives saved, along with hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian lives. As regards Iraq, at some point the United States will announce that its objectives are achieved ("declare victory") and depart; then whatever is going to happen to that nation will happen, regardless of U.S. plans. Dragging out the inevitable departure will only add to the toll of lives.
Asked why we don't simply leave Iraq, American and British officials surely would say that chaos would ensue. How would that differ from the condition of today? Chaos reigns in several of the nation's cities, gunfire and explosions everywhere; bombs detonate regularly in the capital. Perhaps if Western forces departed Iraq, the anarchy and infighting would get worse. But going house-to-house trying to kill everyone in Iraq who favors chaos is a losing game. The United States military will never succeed at this assignment: no military could, no matter how much power it possessed.
Ultimately, only Iraqis themselves can return their country to stability, and this will not happen until Western forces leave. Once American and British forces leave Iraq, there will be social stigma against those who want chaos; today, there is some admiration. Imagine that a powerful Muslim army was occupying the United States and said its only purpose was to assist the American people. Imagine that the Muslim occupiers truly did want to help, and were building schools and hospitals to prove their good intent. Nevertheless there would be bedlam in the streets, American rebels would be sabotaging the occupier and setting off bombs under the Muslim army's trucks; the people causing this chaos would be admired, and America could return to peacefulness only when the Muslim army left.
Just look at the images from Iraqi cities: Almost every day U.S. forces are blowing up buildings, smashing homes, dropping bombs in civilian areas. Surely more damage has been done to civilian areas of Iraq, and to civilian daily life, in the 16 months since the invasion ended than during the attack. Polls of Iraqis show that for the first six months or so most were glad the United States had come to depose their dictator. Since then, hostility to the American presence has steadily risen, not only because Iraqis are sick of seeing foreign troops on their streets, but because with each passing week, U.S. forces bring more destruction to the cities of Iraq.
If we remain, the U.S. military will continue to cause destruction in civilian areas of Iraq: Our forces have no choice in this as they must protect themselves, and now face the dilemma fighting a foe that hides among civilians. Bear in mind that no military has ever solved this dilemma. Not the United States in Vietnam, not Israel in the West Bank, not the Soviet Union in Afghanistan--no military has found a satisfactory solution to the problem of conducting combat operations in civilian areas without killing the wrong people and making the law-abiding majority despise the occupier. The only technique that has ever worked in the modern era to stop an insurgence against an occupying power is the imposition of total dictatorship, as for instance practiced by the Nazis in World War II. Obviously the United States cannot use this tactic. That means the U.S. military attempt to stamp out Iraqi resistance is not likely to succeed, no matter how bravely and admirably U.S. forces fight. The Iraqis are resisting a foreign invader; even George W. Bush now calls the United States an "occupying power." History teaches that foreign invaders who attempt to crush nationalist resistance always fail, while engendering hatred among the occupied country's law-abiding majority.
Not leaving also insures continued loss of life--and it is alarming how little Americans are talking about the deaths, ours and theirs, occurring in Iraq. During the invasion of Iraq, 139 American military personnel died: but the invasion was a fight we knew we would win, and one with two strong justifications: the desire to depose a dictator and the belief that Iraq possessed banned weapons. Since the May 2003, end of invasion-related fighting, 832 American military lives have been lost in a fight we may lose and that lacks a rationale. Those soldiers who died in the attack to depose Saddam and find banned weapons died in just cause. Those dying in Iraq today die for--what, exactly? Why are we in Iraq at this point? Surely not because we are so foolish as to think we can dictate events!
Iraqi civilian deaths now number into the thousands, perhaps as high as about 13,000. While U.S. and British combat units have conducted themselves with exemplary honor in Iraq, taking every precaution to avoid noncombatants, it is simply impossible to fight in urban areas and not sometimes kill the wrong people. We have now killed considerably more innocent Iraqi civilians than the number of innocent American civilians who died on September 11. And though Western forces do not intend to kill civilians, while the murderers of 9/11 did intend this crime, from the standpoint of the dead it's all the same. Initial American motives in entering Iraq may have been just, but it is dishonorable that there is now essentially no discussion in American politics of the fact that our continuing presence in Iraq is causing Iraqi civilians to die.
If the Western nations left Iraq, the country might stabilize and move toward democracy, and then the United States invasion would be seen as a triumph of idealism. Or bad things might happen. There might be awful sectarian violence; Iran might annex much of Iraq, creating a regional superpower hostile to Israel; the Baath Party might reassert itself; there could be all kinds of negative consequences. But there will be the risk of either happy or unhappy consequences whenever we leave--as, ultimately, we will. By delaying the inevitable day of departure, the United States intensifies Arab and Muslim hatred of its policies; further diminishes its standing with friendly nations; makes Washington seem to care more about oil companies than about the lives of U.S. soldiers; insures further Iraqi civilian deaths that will be on our conscience; and costs more American soldiers their lives, while continuing to waste vast amounts of money that could instead be spent rebuilding what we have destroyed.
The United States invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and search for banned weapons. Hussein is now deposed, and no banned weapons were present. So why don't we leave?
Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor at TNR.
