| |
Where is the End of the
War in Iraq?
Posted 6-29-2005
I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of this invasion and
occupation of Iraq. This nation should demand of the Bush administration,
not a timetable for withdrawal, but a definition of "victory". Just what is
a win over there? That way, we'd know if we are moving toward victory or
not.
Because to
this point, I do not think this administration has clearly defined our
objective. First, it was the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that their
trumped up or faulty "intelligence" told them were ready to be unleashed on
us. Soon after the WMDs was the removal of Reagan, Daddy Bush, and
Rumsfeld's former ally Saddam Hussein. There were no WMD and Saddam is gone,
but apparently the democratization of Iraq has become the goal.
But just
what does the democratization of Iraq mean? When, if ever, would it be
achieved, and who will determine that a government created out of the chaos
of our invasion will ever look acceptable to this administration and the
right-wing ideologues that encouraged this misadventure? Since there is no
western-style democracy in the entire Islamic world, is it a reasonable and
achievable goal? If the creation of a "democracy" in Iraq is the definition
of "victory" for the Bush administration, is victory attainable?
I am afraid
that this administration is making the same mistake made by previous
administrations during the Vietnam War to project our values and desires on
people of a different culture. The three main population groups in Iraq,
Shiites, Sunnis, and the Kurds, have been thrown together in this unnatural
country for less than one hundred years, and the only reason they were
thrown together was because of the imperial arrogance of Great Britain in
the waning days of that colonial empire. Otherwise, there was no reason for
the creation of Iraq.
Kurds, for
the most part, would likely prefer an independent Kurdish state that would
transcend the boundaries of Iraq. Shiites, the majority in Iraq, that along
with the Kurds suffered tremendously under Saddam, would most likely feel
allegiance toward Iran, its neighbor and essentially a Shiite-controlled
theocracy. That leaves the Sunnis, a minority of Iraq's population that
pretty much had the upper hand during Saddam's reign, to try to battle for
their fair share at the bargaining table when a new government is formed.
Underlying
all of the above is that Islam is a culture where religious leaders play a
large role in shaping, not only people's spiritual behavior, but in how
their society functions. Unless the religious leaders give their blessing on
any new government, it will not happen. Have we not been watching the iron
fist of control exerted by the religious leaders in Iran? Even with an
election process true power has remained in the hands of the Ruling Council,
not the winners of elections.
Perhaps a
theocracy is acceptable to the Bush administration. And if that is the case,
then they should say so. But this nebulous, ever-changing "goal" for Iraq is
leading down a long, dangerous path. It is a path that will not make us more
secure, but create an endless supply of fighters that not only resent our
occupation, but see us as the problem, not the solution to their situation.
Military
leaders on the ground in Iraq are recognizing that there is not a real
military solution to Iraq's challenges. They have been quoted as saying that
for every insurgent they kill, three more are created. Yet, old Donald
Rumsfeld is saying, "We can win, but insurgencies can go on for twelve
years." Is that the Bush administration's timetable for exiting Iraq? Maybe
Rummy memory is going, but international Islamic terrorism has been going on
for thirty-five years already and since our invasion of Iraq, it is showing
no signs of weakening.
While the
circumstances and the cultures may be different, the lesson from Vietnam
that can certainly be applicable to us now is that the Vietnamese didn't
care if it took forever; they were fighting until they drove first the
French and then the USA from their soil. And, it did take them over twenty
years from the early 1950s to the early 1970s. When are certain Americans
going to understand the fact that we are not going to dictate to other
nations, and more importantly to other cultures, what we want to see take
place in their lands. It is a painful, costly lesson that some fellow
Americans cannot seem to learn.
So while we
are out celebrating 229 years of our nation's independence from an
occupying, imperial army, I hope people will remember that only to the
Tories were the Redcoats looked upon as "protectors". To the ordinary
colonists at that time, who knew nothing of democratic governments, they
only had one thing in mind -- they weren't going to quit fighting until the
occupying army was driven from their land. Is that what this administration
really wants in Iraq?
|
