Most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq and for the U.S. to be victorious. Arguments over the proper course to take are usually arguments over which of these two priorities are paramount. Within this argument two additional questions present themselves. First, at what cost is victory attainable (if it is attainable). Second, what is the cost of failure? In any argument, the key is to define the terms involved, and the same applies here. So, what is victory in Iraq?
The initial objective of the war against Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein and his Baath party from power and to eliminate any capacity that nation might have to produce and use or sell weapons of mass destruction. This initial objective has been accomplished. Saddam Hussein is dead, his party has been removed control over the government and military, and the country does not have WMD capacity (if it ever did). However, the second objective of the war is now at issue--in what condition should Iraq be left? This is the question that must be answered, and that in most minds will define what "victory" is, and whether it is attainable.
Victory in Iraq should entail a quality of life for the people living in that country that is superior to that enjoyed during the old regime, and the establishment of governmental authorities that will not support terrorism against the U.S. There are other desires that the U.S. could have, but these two objectives ensure that the U.S. is safe with regard to Iraq (the main justification of the war was that Saddam's government was an imminent threat to the US). The establishment of a democratic regime in Iraq that is friendly to the USA and provides western-style freedoms to its people (perhaps modified to allow for a small level of modification to reflect the Koran), has been the goal of the Bush administration for quite some time. This is one possible definition of victory and is the one most beneficial to U.S. interests. It is also a goal that is ambitious and difficult to obtain, given the difference in the intellectual and religious history of Iraq when compared to western democracies as well as the tribal distrust and differences between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.
Another possible objective is similar to the one just mentioned, except without seeking to ensure that western style freedoms are established in Iraq. This option instead states that it is sufficient if the Iraqi government keeps the peace and is strong enough to prevent the country from becoming a terrorist haven. This option helps U.S. safety, and likely leads to a better future than was likely under Saddam (a murderer and tyrant) unless a similar type ruler succeeds him in time. The big question here is whether the current regime can prevent the nation from descending into Civil War, a situation that would totally destabilize the region, provide a haven for terrorists, and if long and bloody lead to a worse situation for Iraqis than they faced under Saddam. Perhaps, if the odds of the current government succeeding can be greatly improved by maintaining troop levels for a time longer, or keeping a smaller force in the country then that would be the prudent move to make. A third possibility is to partition the country in three, which allows the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to each have their own nation. There are obvious difficulties in doing so, as all three groups would have to buy in to such a plan. Each faction would undoubtedly desire to get the best deal for itself, particularly with regard to Iraq's oil.
If the three options just mentioned are not obtainable at a reasonable cost in American lives and resources, or simply have a minimal chance of success, then a withdrawal should be immediate. If all other options will not make America safer or Iraq a better place, then they should not be attempted. Anything other than an immediate withdrawal only delays the inevitable and wastes lives and money.
In thinking through the various options the U.S. has, I am struck by the fact that the goal of establishing democracy in Iraq is not necessary in order to have "victory." Nor is it necessary to leave behind a nation where there is no violence. Quite simply, it is not realistic to expect that will be no strife, no bombings, no attempts by different factions to try and stir up trouble. What needs to be done is the establishment of a government and corresponding military that can keep the peace in Iraq and does not threaten America or slaughter its citizens. The option that is most likely to lead to this result is either maintaining a force in the nation for one or two more years until the government is strong enough to take over much of those functions, and then to maintain a reduced military presence in the nation for a number of years afterwards. If the government is unlikely to be able to govern effectively, then the nation should be partitioned if at all possible. Either of these two results can lead to results that would be considered a victory for the U.S. in this war.
No comments:
Post a Comment