Stay the Course Or Cut and Run?
Posted on October 11, 2006 - Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
This is the choice facing American voters in November’s Congressional elections. If the Republicans manage to maintain controll of Congress, they shall stick with their unpopular Iraqi adventure, whereas the Democrats are committed to a full withdrawal within two years if they wrest controll from the foundering GOP. So who has the right plan?
‘Stay the Course’ has been referred to by some as “Stay and Die”, and not without good cause. At present, US troops in Iraq are attacked by insurgents every fifteen minutes, resulting in heavy losses among the American forces. This is by far the most compelling reason to withdraw from Iraq, but is it in itself sufficient? I don’t think so.
Strange as it may seem, after a three year ‘Fiasco’ in the Middle East I have finally come round to the idea that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussain was the right thing to do. This is surprising, not least because prominent initial supporters of the war such as Francis Fukuyama have now decided that it might not have been such a good idea after all. The reason for this about turn in my position was hearing the case made by a Republican (I can’t remember his name now; he isn’t very well known) for the war on a Washinton Post podcast. He didn’t say anything we haven’t all heard before, but he said it a way which made it seem very reasonable, which is something I’ve never encountered in the Irish media.
With the exception of the late Kevin Myers (dead to me ever since he left the Times for that ‘Independent’ rag), I don’t recall reading any other pro-Iraq war journaism in the Old Media in this country. Yes, the IT did once play host to the histionic outburts of Mark Steyn, and it has recently syndicated the American conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, but I suspect these two were choosen more for their shrillness of tone than to provide a reasonanable, right-wing, American alternative to the free-for-all of Bush & America bashing to which the IT op-ed pages so often descend everytime it enters the head if an Irish journalist or to write about American foreign policy.
But anyway, the war in Irap. The Republican in the podcast’s main point on Iraq was that, were the US to pull out now, to ‘cut and run’ as it were, it would probably result in the collapse of the Iraqi state and embolden the terrrorists. If Iraq fell into full blown civil war, with no central government, law enforcement or army, then it would be an ideal training ground and base for terrorists. If however, the US ‘stays the course’, brings the civilised rule of democracy to the country and then departs having completed its mission, then Iraqi war effort will have been a great success and a significant blow will have been struct against terrorism.
Another point that I’d like to raise here is one that George Bush makes a lot, namely that they’re ‘fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here’. I think there’s an awful lot of truth behind this claim. For instince, if you were a West-hating radical Muslim who wanted to fight for your beliefs, would you head to Iraq to meet the infidel head on in combat or spend either months or years plotting and scheming to strike somewhere in the US?
It’s quite obvious that there have been problems from the very beginning with this war, but sloopy executing does not invalidate the merits of an undertaking. Better intellegnce, better leadership and hell of a lot more troops would certainly have made the last three years smoother. Donald Rumsfeld is largely to blame for these problems, and he should surely have been replaced a long time ago. UN approval would also have helped matters, but such ‘Monday morning quarter-backing’ (the GOP has such a way with phrases) will not do us much good now.
To return to an earlier point, suppose Iraq were to erupt into civil war after a Democratic cut and run operation, does anyone else see that America might then have to invade again? Any faction able to take control of an abandoned Iraq would most likely be extremely ruthless, Islamist and anti-American. Another such government is the last thing the Middle East needs.
I’m not trying to say that W is always, or even often, right about things, but I think that, generally speaking, he is right about Iraq. True enough, Hussain had no WMD, nor is there evidence he assisted Al-Quaida, but he was still a despotic villain and the world is a better place without him. Whether or not it will be a safer place without him depends on America having to courage to complete the job it took on. We should wish them well in their endevour.
Still though, if you’re American, please vote blue in November.
Comments
2 Responses to “Stay the Course Or Cut and Run?”
Leave a Reply
I’m really not sure that America can set up a democracy in Iraq that will ever be seen as anything other than a puppet government by most of the people there. The problem is that terrorists simply will not give up on this, they see Americans as an invading force and if they have to go on fighting forever that’s fine. To be honest all they need is one instigator who’ll talk some angry young guy into shooting an American. He dies, his family blames the Americans and the cycle continues.
As for ‘fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here’ I say most of the people shooting at troops wouldn’t have been devoted enough (or rich enough) to head to America to blow up schools. Now they just have to get a gun and wait for them to walk by.
I think that America will be able to set up a stable governernmet. They’ve already made some big steps, such as holding free elections, overseeing the writing of the Iraqi constitution, etc… it’s just a matter of better counter insurgency tactics and winning hearts and minds. Average Iraqis may not like the US much, but I bet they hate the insurgents a lot more.