Out of Iraq and into the War
As the war in Iraq has gone from bad to worse the term “anti-war movement” has once again entered the social lexicon. This generalization has been used to suggest that those opposed to the Iraq war and how it has been run are pacifists. For some that may be true. However, as the number of Americans that are ready to withdraw from Iraq increase it is clear things are not that simple.
“Cut and run” has been the chanted response from the administration. They’ve tried to equate being against the war in Iraq to an idea that denies that we are fighting a war at all. Before 9/11 people in the government like Richard Clark (counter terrorism expert for Reagan to George W.) were aware of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. The threat posed by an ideology twisted to hate was real and growing long before the dark day that marked this war’s beginning. Up to that time it was the administration itself that seemed to be ignoring the problem and the danger. After 9/11 the Bush administration took action that I supported from day one and still do. The invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was bold and courageous. They represented a government power that supported and protected Al Qaeda and it’s leader Osama Bin Laden. Removing the Taliban from power was just the kind of nation building exercise of military power that was necessary to help insure our own safety. Flush with the quick victory against the Taliban government the administration turned to Iraq. Why? There were still terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Somalia, Europe and elsewhere. The one place in the entire world, especially the Middle East, that was isolated, controlled and free of Al Qadea activity was Iraq. With sanctions and travel restrictions already in place very few people were coming and going under the nose of Hussein’s secular authoritarian government.
The theory behind the Iraq invasion was that it would be an example of democracy in action in the heart of the Middle East. The fact that it would have to be imposed at gunpoint was an irony not seen by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld. Afghanistan is not in the heart of the Middle East. They, as a general rule, are not Arab but Persian. They have more poppies than they do oil but there is almost universal acceptance that the Afghanistan invasion was a necessary action against those that would do us harm. Why not build that nation and liberate those people? Why split our resources without a plan to win the peace?
130 thousand troops that are now in Iraq could be combing the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. 308 billion dollars could have been spent building Afghanistan into a positive example of American intervention. Unfortunately that country is slipping back into chaos. If our military was less engaged in Iraq we could put more military pressure on dangerous governments like Iran, Syria and North Korea. These threats are growing and becoming more emboldened everyday. By trying to do everything the Bush administration has done less than nothing. Iraq isn’t a war that we should oppose because war is wrong. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is keeping us from fighting the war that is really going on.
Perhaps it is time to change the rally cry of the anti Iraq war movement. We should change the focus from getting out of Iraq to getting back into Afghanistan. We need to start demanding that our soldiers be put where they can do the most good for their sacrifices. It is the least support we can give to those that risk so much. War is a terrible exercise in inhumanity. The waste and bloodshed in every conflict should make us pause before acting. What is worse than wars are battles fought without effective purpose. War is and has been a blunt tool of diplomacy since civilization began. Military action is still a necessary evil in these dangerous times as we search for our own security. Opposition to the war in Iraq is not an indictment of the action itself but an acknowledgment of the limitations and inappropriate use of military power.
“Cut and run” has been the chanted response from the administration. They’ve tried to equate being against the war in Iraq to an idea that denies that we are fighting a war at all. Before 9/11 people in the government like Richard Clark (counter terrorism expert for Reagan to George W.) were aware of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. The threat posed by an ideology twisted to hate was real and growing long before the dark day that marked this war’s beginning. Up to that time it was the administration itself that seemed to be ignoring the problem and the danger. After 9/11 the Bush administration took action that I supported from day one and still do. The invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was bold and courageous. They represented a government power that supported and protected Al Qaeda and it’s leader Osama Bin Laden. Removing the Taliban from power was just the kind of nation building exercise of military power that was necessary to help insure our own safety. Flush with the quick victory against the Taliban government the administration turned to Iraq. Why? There were still terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Somalia, Europe and elsewhere. The one place in the entire world, especially the Middle East, that was isolated, controlled and free of Al Qadea activity was Iraq. With sanctions and travel restrictions already in place very few people were coming and going under the nose of Hussein’s secular authoritarian government.
The theory behind the Iraq invasion was that it would be an example of democracy in action in the heart of the Middle East. The fact that it would have to be imposed at gunpoint was an irony not seen by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld. Afghanistan is not in the heart of the Middle East. They, as a general rule, are not Arab but Persian. They have more poppies than they do oil but there is almost universal acceptance that the Afghanistan invasion was a necessary action against those that would do us harm. Why not build that nation and liberate those people? Why split our resources without a plan to win the peace?
130 thousand troops that are now in Iraq could be combing the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. 308 billion dollars could have been spent building Afghanistan into a positive example of American intervention. Unfortunately that country is slipping back into chaos. If our military was less engaged in Iraq we could put more military pressure on dangerous governments like Iran, Syria and North Korea. These threats are growing and becoming more emboldened everyday. By trying to do everything the Bush administration has done less than nothing. Iraq isn’t a war that we should oppose because war is wrong. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is keeping us from fighting the war that is really going on.
Perhaps it is time to change the rally cry of the anti Iraq war movement. We should change the focus from getting out of Iraq to getting back into Afghanistan. We need to start demanding that our soldiers be put where they can do the most good for their sacrifices. It is the least support we can give to those that risk so much. War is a terrible exercise in inhumanity. The waste and bloodshed in every conflict should make us pause before acting. What is worse than wars are battles fought without effective purpose. War is and has been a blunt tool of diplomacy since civilization began. Military action is still a necessary evil in these dangerous times as we search for our own security. Opposition to the war in Iraq is not an indictment of the action itself but an acknowledgment of the limitations and inappropriate use of military power.
posted by kamuizot at 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home