1,095 sunrises. 1,095 sunsets. 1,095 morning newspapers. 3 birthdays. 3 spring cleanings. 3 first snowfalls. 3 Christmas mornings.
In other words, 3 years. That is how long America's military has been engaged in Iraq. If we were talking about marriage, we would be still be talking about newlyweds. If we were talking about children, we might still be using the word, "baby." If we were talking about a tree, we might refer to a sapling. In other words, 3 years is not really a long time, particularly when we are talking about important things that require important commitments. I mean, few of us would call an alcoholic's three-year dry period a success if that former drunk has been addicted for 35 years. Such things take time. But we would not call it a failure either, nor would we call it foolish. Nor would we dismiss the drunk if he were to slip into a bottle every other week, or even every other day.
I am not one to dismiss bad news. There is bad news in Iraq every day; just like there is bad news in America every day. Boston has hundreds of unsolved murders less than two years old, a blight which proves––does it not?––that Boston is a quagmire. Tens of thousands of Americans are murdered annually, and yet we do not hear about America's abject failure as a democracy, that it is a decrepit civic project foisted on us by lying neo-cons.
Let us admit that there have been less than ideal things that have occurred in Iraq over the last three years. Let us bend our knees and beg for mercy. Mistakes have been made. Mistakes will be made. But let us also note that critics of the war do so from a supposed enlightened position, arguing that Iraq, or war in general, is only commendable when everything about military action is handled perfectly. In fact, let us go one step further, and suggest, hyperbolically perhaps, that critics of the war are a bit like vacationers who can only relax if everything about a trip goes "perfectly." For the rest of us, imperfections are proof that we are alive, giving us broken things to fix and broken things from which to learn. A perfect war, or a perfect reason for war, is a dream for leftist war critics, who have a penchant for longing for a perfect world. The rest of us, dystopic to the core, are grateful that utopia is not achievable, for the world would be a bland place if utopia was achieved. For utopia leaves us with the blandness of a cruise ship vacation or a Florida retirement resort.
But this is not about justifying war because it makes us stronger or teaches us lessons. This is to justify the lessons as an unavoidable consequence of being engaged in the pursuit of peace and justice in a violent, Darwinian world. For if Darwin is right, then utopia is not only not achievable, violence is not avoidable nor is war ever going to be perfect.
I wonder, should I give up on my marriage after three anniversaries merely because it is difficult and costly? Should I give up on my "baby" because she is not conforming to my expectations of a 3-year-old? Should I quit redesigning my house because it is taking too long, or that it is too hard on my hands? Should I quit my job after three annual reviews, because it is not a perfect job? Should I cut down my newly-planted elm because it is growing too slowly, bending a bit mid-trunk? And should I retreat from Boston because it is a violent, backward and forsaken place?
If a person wants Iraq to really become a breeding ground for terrorists, let that person withdraw American and coalition forces immediately. If a person wants to turn the Middle East against America, let that person pull America out of Iraq before Iraq has gotten back on its feet. If a person wants failure, then by all means, let them acquit themselves of his or her commitment when the going gets rough, right at the outset of their senior year. Who cares about that diploma, anyway?
Iraq, we pray for you.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
11 comments:
Living in Canada as I do, and having access to much anti-war commentary, this was enlightening for me.
This was so pithy and wise all I can say is "Amen, and thanks for posting it."
Hi Bill, I do feel welcome here, but…
Sorry, I but don't get it. I tried. I read it twice. (Must be all the European press.) But knocking out Saddam as if it had to be done when it was done… It's not like a marriage that's struggling or a 3-year-old tree that's bent or even a diploma you have to work for. It's more like that couple never should have got married (but no one would tell them), a fig tree won't grow in the Alps (but you can plant it wherever you want), and maybe there is something to learning a trade (not too sure about the last one).
Don't withdraw from Iraq. But to claim, as some have, it was the right thing to do from the beginning is really hard to swallow. They might suggest I just need to chew on it a couple more years?
I agree we can't leave Iraq now. That would be more damaging. However, the reasons we went there proved to be false and we were to hasty to prove might makes right. It all seems to quote Shakespeare, that "something smells rotten" about this war. As a former enlistee and one who has friends there it seems that we are putting good people in harms way for an agenda that is not totally honest. I hope, that in the future we won't have another book like McNamara's (I think it was him) that tries to clense it soul and confesses we had no idea what we were doing. People are dying. Mostly the innocent. This is not a game. It is war.
Dear Victor and Brady,
I am not one to advocate war, as you should be able to tell from the nature of this blog. However, I am not the pacifist I once was as a younger man. Actually, let me put it differently by saying that I may remain a pacifist, but I've reached a point where I no longer believe I need to prevent others from being pugnacious. If my neighbor wants to use force to defend himself against marauding bands of thugs, who am I to deny him this? Should I not turn the other cheek, so to speak, to his choice?
With that said, I am not a big proponent of war, even war in Iraq. Right after 9/11 I was calling for restraint; for patience. 9/11 was after all only an attack; it was not an invasion. To unfurl American military strength against the small thugs who hurt us that day was a decision that needed to be guided by caution and the strength that real strength enjoys: self-restraint.
But, let me list some reasons that the invasion of Iraq was not done willy-nilly or hastily, beginning with the obvious fact that the invasion began 18-months after 9/11, which is not suggestive of a reactionary act.
1) The first Bush administration, in an effort to appease the squeamish critics of military action, stopped short of ousting Saddam Hussein in 1991 during the Gulf War (Bush the First would not have had a coalition of much import or Saudi Arabian support if he had not promised to leave Hussein in place). This was a major mistake, though the mistake was not a partisan but a bipartisan one.
2) In 1993, terrorists with Iraqi links detonated a massive bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center with the intent of toppling one tower into another. Had they succeeded, the death toll of that horrific day may have easily exceeded 50,000. One terrorist fled the country and was given asylum in Iraq. A former Clinton staffer eventually published an article linking that attack to the Iraq regime.
3) In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa against the US for its continued sanctions and military strikes in and around Iraq. That fatwa was the basis for 9/11.
4) Also in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, the sole purpose of which was to effect regime change in Iraq. That this was a provocative response to the many boasts of Osama bin Laden is unarguable. The George W. Bush administration inherited, and was bound by, that law.
5) When 9/11 occurred, it is evident that Rumsfeld and others first suspected Iraq, since Hussein had the clearest motive, the money and the means. Irrespective of Iraq's non-involvement, it was evident that al-Qaida was motivated by OBL's fatwa, which made Iraq the central reason for attacking the US. Moreover, though the 9/11 commission found that the there was no collaborative connection between Iraq and al-Qaida's 9/11 actions, the commission went out of its way to declare that it did not say there was no connection between Hussein and al-Qaida. In fact, there were many (see Stephen F. Hayes' book, "The Connection", for details).
6) Throughout the arms inspections regime, the Iraq government constantly played a public and very well-reported cat-and-mouse game with the UN weapons inspectors. Combined with the intelligence services of numerous countries confirming that the Iraqis had WMD, it was reasonable to presume that Iraq was well-armed. Plus, on the very eve of the invasion, Hussein remained recalcitrant and defiant: His refusal to comply appeared as irrefutable proof that the man had something to hide. Why would he choose to lose a country to the West if he had no weapons?
7) It was inevitable that Iraq would someday find itself vulnerable to outside pressure, particularly if Hussein died (which will happen, eventually). A vulnerable Iraq was ripe for invasion by Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iran. Had the US waited for that sort of thing to happen, its current role in the Middle East would now be much more difficult and tenuous. (See Christopher Hitchens piece; there is a link to it in my Today's Must Read tag in the sidebar.)
8) With a democratic Iraq, peace talks in Israel/Palestine could proceed, with Hussein unable to threaten Israel or support terrorists groups (which he did). I believe that had the US not invaded Iraq, not only would the peace talks and Gaza pullout have come to a screeching halt; Israel would have handled Hussein, which would have been a far more catastrophic event than what we are dealing with now.
9) With American military forces in Iraq, the conflict would be largely contained to Islamic holy lands: if the resistors fought elsewhere they would run the risk of an infidel nation overtaking an Islamic holy place. This has had the effect of drawing most if not all warriors to those holy lands. And if the insurgents with al-Qaida were now to strike on US soil, the political war they've been waging stateside for the mind and will of the American electorate would be lost: America's resolve to fight radical Islam would only be strengthened. Hence, taking the fight to the mid-East has forced foes of America to fight in the mid-East. (This may prove only theoretical, but for the past three years it has been effective.)
In all of this I clearly understand why Iraq is central to the War on Terror. But I am doubtful about whether fighting in Iraq was the right thing. What this fighting has done for me is that it has forced me to try to defend George W. Bush from unfair and unjust and even deceptive criticism. I am all for fair criticism of Bush and Co., but what is passing as objective commentary in much of America is really just so much junk.
These are what I believe were the primary, foundational reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I recognize that hindsight has given us a clarity that was impossible prior to the invasion. For instance, I now realize that Hussein played his cat-and-mouse game so as to appear strong to his threatening neighbors: He'd rather have the US invade his country than Iran, knowing, as he does, that we would treat him fairly, which we have.
I am sorry if this is all old hat for the two of you, but I needed to do this to sort my thoughts a bit.
Peace to you forever!
Gnade
For further commentary on the Iraq War, I recommend this post from Occasional Outbursts. His additional links are very helpful.
BG
Thanks for the responses. I am working through the info. I'm not convinced that the liberation of Iraq, at this time and unilaterally, was the best move for America of in the fight against terrorism.
BTW, Europe NEVER had confidence in Bush, even before he was elected. He was a jerk before he had ever made a move. In their minds, he only CONFIRMED their prejudices by rejecting Kyoto and then by taking Iraq.
But after 9-11, there was a surplus of sympathy for the USA and the fight against terrorism (ex.: international support for the elimination of the Taliban government). Too bad that sympathy disappeared, or was maybe even squandered.
Brady,
Thank you for challenging me. It is good to find that I have a reader(s) that do(es) not accept my every word. In fact, I confess that I am glad that even my wife doesn't accept my every word: We are all prone to well, over-reach.
OK. You might be right on Iraq. As I said, I am not much of a hawk, personally. But I would not call the US's actions unilateral: there was indeed significant global support for US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Alas, of course, the world is often wrong. But I would also venture this guess: that French and German political antipathy toward US actions was tacitly and quietly agreed to by all parties, for had the Germans and French involved themselves in the War in Iraq, they would have been domestically decimated by terror attacks: both France and Germany have allowed themselves to become very vulnerable targets––internally.
Now, I am sure Bush was hated in Europe before he became president; Europe hated him because his name was Bush. But the Kyoto Treaty rejection was not a Bush act. In fact, during the Clintion Administration, in July 1997, three years before I had even heard of George W. Bush, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 95-0 (no one voted against it, so call it 100-0). The bi-partisan Byrd-Hagel resolution, which denounced the Treaty for its lack of clarity, fairness, and accountability measures, was even supported by European darling himself, John Kerry. In a real twist of political intrigue, both Bill Clinton and Al Gore signed on in support of the Kyoto Treaty, doing so solely for political purposes: they wanted to look good to the Europeans. However, President Clinton NEVER submitted the treaty to the US Senate for ratification.
George Bush stepped into this mess nearly four years LATER. Even if he HAD signed the treaty, it would have been soundly trounced by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress (which Bill Clinton himself understood). His position, which you can find written out here, is nearly verbatim the same as the US Senate's. Sen. Voinovich said in 2002:THE KYOTO TREATY WAS DEAD LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE. [his emphasis]
To read the US Senate's 1997 resolution begin here, following the tags through the resolution's three pages. To see the vote tallies, try this. To read what Sen. Hagel had to say on the matter, try this. To read what Senate Foreign Relations committee member Jay Rockefeller had to say re: Clinton/Gore, read here.
In other words, it would be injudicious to hate Bush, as the Europeans allegedly do, because he opposed Kyoto. In all accuracy, he was merely responding to Senate advice––a Clinton-era Senate no less. Plus, since it is evident that the EU has been pressing to become the center of the world, even jostling to have the world currency shift from the US$ to the Euro€, it makes sense that the EU would want the US to sign itself on to Kyoto, as it would severely weaken the American economy and push the EU further along.
Admittedly, this last part is speculative, but it is not rooted in much fantasy.
My initial post was about whether the US should withdraw from Iraq merely because it has been a rougher 3 years than expected. I do not think it should. Nor do I think it will. If Iraq is so dangerous, and if democracy is not desired, it is hard to comprehend how millions of people swarm to the polls, upon threat of death; or that Iraqi men still sign up for jobs as policemen and soldiers, despite the fact that they are targets by the insurgents. In the US we hear people insisting that Iraq is in the midst of civil war, with 25,000 people fighting among themselves. But in a country of 25,000,000 people, 25,000 miscreants, being merely 1/10th of 1 percent, is hardly a civil war. Even at 250,000 fighters, 1 percent of the population at war with itself is hardly a sign of imminent overthrow. It is this sort of thing with which I kick against: the misinformation and hyperbole that damages real discourse. That is why I may come across as a Bush apologist; the man is rarely given a fair shot.
Peace to you, dear man,
BG
Brady,
I made a few mistakes in my post. The Senate voted 95-0 in favor of the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which was a rejection of the Kyoto Treaty. So it is safe to say that the US Senate voted 100-0 against Kyoto (and not against the resolution).
Also, when I wrote "His position, written out here,..." I was not referring to Bill Clinton but George W. Bush.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused you.
Peace, always,
Gnade
M. Bill:
Thanks for taking the time and responding. Almost missed the second response. Very informative. But I have not had the time to check out the links, which I want to do very much. I want to find out more about USA stands on Kyoto.
The Europeans I cross did not / do not disdain W. because he was a Bush. Sentiment was high for H. Bush. But the prejudice came partially from his stand on the death penalty as Governor of Texas. This alienated him (even though, I know, Clinton was not against the death penalty). Plus Bush was also willing to talk publically about his faith. (And, I know, Clinton did the same. But Europeans LOVE Clinton.) Here, folks don't debate those two topics. Everyone who is not a jerk is against the death penalty, and, "We live in a Secular State. Leave God out of it."
More later. Thanks too for the poem. The words hit hard.
I messed up on my "his" and talk as if W were dead. Sorry. Jet lag.
Brady
Post a Comment