Stoopid Stuff

Thinking the Unthinkable

Soon it will be two years since our ill-advised and badly botched invasion of Iraq. In those two years, we've gone from Military Victory (was anybody truly surprised?) to a growing, vibrant insurgency, a growing American troop presence and the increasing hatred of the regular folks of occupied Iraq. Our soldiers keep dying, their police won't fight other Iraqis, and we keep finding new, creative ways to kill innocent civilians.

Throughout all of this farce and horror, there is one big part of the national discussion conspicuously missing. Indeed, it was never mentioned during the presidential campaigns, and it still seems to be a taboo subject. I am talking, of course, about withdrawal. Bring the troops home. Whether we "declare victory" and leave or admit the entire process was a mistake, and the right thing to do is end it now, this doesn't really matter to me one whit. I'm convinced in my heart that at some point in the future, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will be tried and imprisoned for the dishonest and venal way they started this war. But why does the dialog not include this rather obvious option?

Sure, we are told, we would leave behind chaos and civil war. Probably true. And completely our fault. But our first obligation is to America, her economy, her people, her position in the world. To continue this misguided adventure only ensures that there will be more bloodshed, more terrorists, and more people throughout the Islamic world with more and better reasons to hate us. It is impossible to look at the situation in Iraq as it exists today and honestly see a good outcome. When you can't win, perhaps the best thing is to simply avoid losing.

We could use the January 30th elections as cover for this action. We could announce that, with a sovereign government in operation in Baghdad, our mission is accomplished and our troops will be brought home. Or, alternatively, we could easily induce the Shiite majority government to ask us to leave, whereupon we could, with great regret and the gnashing of teeth, reluctantly agree that as a sovereign entity, they have every right to make that request and we must comply. And who knows? Maybe the UN will provide a stabilization force. Maybe that force would even be comprised of Gulf-Region and Arab troops, so that there would be none of the friction between the Islamic east and the Christian west that has plagued relations between the regions since the crusades.

Sure, there are a couple major impediments to making this policy a reality. First, the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge that the situation on the ground in Iraq is a problem, let alone that it is deteriorating. This leaves them only the "declare victory and come home" option, for which they will be savaged in the global press for the lives and treasure lost with nothing to show for it. But here's what I think is the biggest problem. I believe that the REAL reason that the administration insisted on going to war in Iraq is that they wanted a permanent US military presence in the midst of the Middle East oil deposits. They wanted to be able to project overwhelming American military power to protect the flow of oil to the US, thereby protecting the US economy. Remember, all these people around President Bush are oil people. With the Saudis terrified of the jihadists, and the smaller nations such as Kuwait and Qatar not ideal for the active posting of over 100,000 troops and their equipment, the only real answer was to invade and occupy a country in the Persian Gulf region, and build permanent bases for those troops. Hence, the WMD argument and Saddam's all of a sudden an "Immediate Threat". Now I HATE conspiracy theories, so I don't necessarily believe this, but it is also possible that all the early miscues, the disbanding of the army, allowing the looting and the crime, the slow rate of rebuilding, could have all been calculated in advance to create an insurgency that would require the presence of American troops for the indefinite future. As I say, I have trouble believing that all those people would keep their mouths shut about this, and it truly does seem more likely that the people at the top of the administration are just arrogant and incompetent.

But no matter what you believe, there is no reason why the withdrawal option should not be on the table. In the ongoing national discourse about this war, it should not be a taboo subject. Since the administration has yet to be honest with us about the purpose and duration of the conflict, the people should have some say in whether we "stay the course" or end the purposeless agony and get out.

posted by mikey @ 11:42 AM