Leaving Iraq

Support for the war in Iraq seems to be dwindling by the week as the general public loses faith in the administration and it’s reasoning for going to war in the first place. Forgetting the most vocal minorities at either side of the political battle, average citizens are beginning to seriously question why we are fighting in Iraq, what we are supposed to be achieving, and how we are getting the job done. Answers to these questions are important, but what we are being told does not match up to what we see and hear. As the death toll rises abroad, our economy and freedoms here at home are taking damage too. For many now, the questions of why and what are less important than the question of when we will bring the troops home. This is a question to which the American people can get no satisfactory answer. The administration is locked into their “We’ll stay until the job is finished!” mantra. The Democrat’s solution is to “Bring everyone home now!” Neither solution reflects the realities in place, and we are, in effect, left with no solution at all as the madness continues. To answer the latter question, we must first be honest about the former questions, because the solution to ending the war depends a great deal on accepting the realities of the situation as they exist now.

To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.
If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see.

If there were ever any noble purpose attached to this war, it would be that we went to remove a sadistic dictator from power in the hopes of freeing a pleading people and giving them a chance at self-determination. Even if our objectives for starting this war were far darker than this, even if our government lied and stole from us to get and fund their war, the only acceptable way to end the conflict is to give the people of Iraq a chance to live safely amongst themselves and their neighbors, with a government of their making, and a relationship with other nations, including America, that is mutually beneficial to the people of those countries and not just their leadership.

We need our government to stand up and tell the people of Iraq, “ We were wrong to bring the war to your doorstep, but we hated Saddam as much as you did and found a convenient time to take him out. We thought we were being helpful. We now realize that sometimes our helpfulness is a bit overdone, so we’ll try to make some amends. We really do want to get to your oil too, but it’s your oil and we’re going to have to do this the fair way, through trade agreements. We hoped you’d take to our system of governing, at least the system we like to talk about, but if you want an Islamic government, so be it. We’ll have to figure out how to peacefully coexist. And we’d really like to be able to help you out with your security problem so that your people can have normal lives again, but you need to really step up to the plate and take the lead. Our folks are getting anxious back home. They don’t want us here any more than you seem to. So here’s our plan and we think it will help end this conflict.”

Step one is the rotation of all National Guard troops back to the United States and to release them from active duty status. The National Guard was designed to protect the homeland and assist in times of disaster or unrest. Their absence from home was all too evident in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Furthermore, these citizen-soldiers occupy an important place in our communities in their jobs as teachers and firemen and nurses and restaurant chefs and every other walk of life. They are not trained to be full time warriors, and their lack of comprehensive training results in higher numbers of casualties on all sides of the conflict. Without significantly reducing the numbers initially, Guard troops can be replaced with active duty personnel at a slowly diminishing rate. The impact of this move would be to assure American citizens that the pull out has begun. It would also serve to let Iraqi’s know that they would soon be responsible for their own security, but would be trained and assisted by professional soldiers who could be expected to adhere to the highest standards.

Step two is to establish a firm time line of no more than one year for the final withdrawal of American battle forces. The administration and its hawks have rejected this idea out of hand, saying that the terrorists and insurgents would simply bide their time until we left to unleash full terror on the Iraqi public. In reality, they may do that, but in the meantime, it could also reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur in the continuing daily warfare as insurgents continue the fight with American troops, killing many more civilians than they do soldiers. In that time span, we would need to stress the importance to Iraqi’s that the security of their country would soon be in their hands, and that responsibility for putting down the violence would soon be theirs too. We should be willing to provide logistical, material, and human support if they continue to request it, but only in a support role once our official withdrawal has occurred. Our withdrawal should be total, except for those requested as support.

Step three is to officially recognize whatever form of government the general public of Iraq elects to install without trying to mold it into an American clone. If that government develops and appears to include provisions which support oppression of certain citizens because of religion or gender, we should insist on a period of expatriation for those citizens who choose not to live under such a government, and provide them with opportunities to relocate to a country of their choosing. If a majority of Iraqi citizens then elect to subject themselves to strict religious doctrine, who are we to say they can’t? If we don’t like it that much, we can always politely refuse to do business with them.

Step four would be to remove all American corporations from Iraq and turn over the reconstruction to the Iraqi people. While accepting the blame for the massive destruction, we will still need to continue to pay a large percentage of the costs for this, but the money is already being funneled to our greedy corporations. We could probably rebuild the place for a fraction of the cost if locals were doing the work. Their investment in time and materials would also prove to be an incentive for them to combat the destructive insurgents in their midst. Such cooperation would reinforce the notion that the future of Iraq lay in the hands of Iraqi people, not just a bunch of greedy capitalist conquerors. Further, this would save untold billions of taxpayer dollars that should be returned to domestic issues for the American people.

Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.

This plan is by no means perfect, but it has the effect of ending this war in Iraq while providing Iraqi’s with the responsibility to reshape their own country in their own way. It offers a way for America to regain her integrity among the world’s nations by ending an increasingly ugly situation and returning to a stance of multilateral cooperation. It would not be tantamount to surrender in any sense of the word. Indeed, ending the war in Iraq is essential if we are ever to truly confront the radical terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. It frees up our resources to narrow the battle to those areas and people who want to fight while leaving out those who would be caught in the middle. It reduces the financial strain on the American economy, a measure that would greatly be appreciated here at home, but around the world as well. It is even likely that by giving Iraqi’s the responsibility for themselves, with a little help if they want it, we may actually gain a true ally, albeit one with a decidedly different world view, but an ally all the same.

It’s time for the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to really mean something.

What’s The Fighting Really All About?

War, when it occurs, is mostly the result of failed diplomacy or aggressive intentions. In a democracy, discerning the underlying motive for military action is vital for providing a defensible justification for using military force. And a justifiable reason for going to war is essential to maintain public support for actions that result in the loss of lives, the destruction of property, and the diversion of public funds.

Most people view war with disdain. The average human being does not relish the thought of armed conflict or widespread destruction for the simple reason that they do not want to be killed, nor do they want to see their families, friends, and neighbors killed either. Conversely, most people do not long to be killers, especially not to advance a cause that in itself furthers the aims of a corrupt government. The number of armed conflicts, seemingly teeming with faithful warriors, may seem to invalidate the idea of man as peaceful, but the truth could possibly be different than the picture that is presented by a world at war.

To defend the concept of armed conflict is to accept the notion that humanity is incapable of solving its differences through compromise and honesty. Indeed, there are times when rational discussion cannot occur, simply because the intransigence of one or more of the arguing parties forbids them from even coming to the bargaining table. Sometimes this reluctance is based on humanitarian principals, such as the Allies refusal to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers at the conclusion of WWII. Sometimes religion is the catalyst for fighting to the last man, such as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and their quest to eradicate “infidels” from traditional sacred lands. Whatever the reason, the failure to avoid armed conflict always marks the beginning of dark times for all parties involved. At best, the only defense for armed conflict between nations is that of the nation (or by treaty, another nation or group of nations who are sworn to each others mutual defense) who is defending herself from the aggression of another, that aggression itself being of a military nature. So while it takes two to argue, the real blame for armed conflict lies with the one who strikes first.

It is easy to justify to a general public the validity of fighting an enemy who has attacked you first. Not only is the average person angered by an offensive assault on their country and countrymen, they are often eager to exact retribution to those who attacked them. What is less easy to do is justify an armed conflict that began not as defensive actions, but rather as an offensive or preventive action. To satisfy a reticent public about the need to fight, government must paint a picture that illustrates the cause of the tensions between nations as well as providing details of the efforts taken to mitigate the problems. They must then establish that the conflict is one of national importance, with our very way of life at stake in the outcome. They must demonstrate that the government has bent over backwards to reach some kind of equitable solution, and that the only way to protect ourselves now is through a first strike military action. And then they must back up their claims with irrefutable evidence of their veracity.

Unfortunately, the information government’s offer for war justification (other than clear cut defensive reasons) is anything but clear and reasoned and often inconsistent with other governmental claims or policies. Shifting reasoning for military action is a sure sign that something is amiss, for if the fight is indeed a just and right cause, there should never be a change in the rationale for the war. Any change in rationale belies the fact that either the public was not told the truth initially, or that the real reasons for the war are in no way acceptable to the public. People may be willing to die for their freedom. They may be willing to die for someone else’s right to freedom. But how many are willing to die over a political sleight, or to enrich multinational corporations who always maximize their profits during wartime? How many are willing to die for half-truths or outright lies?

The onus of telling the truth is on the government, but to get honest information, we first need leaders with integrity and who trust the American people to support whatever action is needed. The burden of making sure the public learns the truth lies with the media. They exist for one thing, and despite their insistence that they are just here to make a profit, media has a responsibility to find the truth and share the truth with the public. Sadly, the ability to separate truth from propaganda has become difficult at best.

If defending war with another nation is an arduous task, justifying a war against an ideology is even more difficult to do, especially without reverting to baseless racial or religious claims as moral authority for conflict. The fact that an army of ideologues could be scattered around the world is itself an impediment to warfare as usual, meaning a near infinite front, a constantly shifting battlefield, and a continually targeted civilian population. Ideological warfare tends to create an arena where surrender is impossible, simply because to do so would be to admit that ones beliefs were less viable than another cultures beliefs. But success is often impossible too, for the exact same reason.

Clearly, there are a few valid reasons for engaging in military conflict, among them the defense of ones own national lands, resources, and people from an armed invasion force; as part of a coalition of national militaries mutually bound to defend another under attack or invasion for no cause; or, in a limited attempt to quell genocidal conflicts and restore civil order. Outside of these reasons, precipitous armed actions should be avoided at all times. The cost of committing ones troops to armed conflict is too high to pay.

The War on Terror began with some semblance of clarity, at least among the general public. We had a good idea who attacked us, where they were, and we went after them. With near unanimous support among the citizenry and around the world, our act of war in Afghanistan was as justified as war ever can be. Sadly, this conflict came at a time when the leadership in place had not the temerity to finish the initial task and end the conflict. Instead, the current crop of political leaders chose to deflect the momentum and turn their sights towards another foe, one that was despicable, but at best only tangentially connected with the other, ongoing war. Iraq presented a diplomatic problem, a humanitarian problem, and a political problem that threatened the reputation of the mighty U.S. of A. For reasons best described as greed, revenge, and control of resources, Iraq was portrayed as a player in the attack on the U.S. They were portrayed as an imminent military threat, not only eager but capable of sending heinous weapons to our shores. We now know that these rationales are false, were false, and will always be false. That Iraq was in need of a new form of government, for the benefit of its citizens and its neighbors, is of no real dispute. Tyrannies are never acceptable to those who love freedom and long for peace. But just as war in Afghanistan was fought for a declared purpose, and almost achieved its stated goal before ramping down efforts, the war in Iraq is just the opposite. The goal is ever changing, the reasons ever morphing, the evidence increasingly underwhelming and even fabricated. The truth is starting to show through, and the reasons offered aren’t holding up so well anymore.

Fighting a foe that subscribes to a fanatical worldview is indeed a life and death struggle, especially when those doing the killing are elusive, eager, and relentless. It requires a level of honest assessment when developing a plan of action and a clear enunciation of what the aims are, what the measure of success will be, and how the conflict will end if your side is the victor. It requires a leadership that is more concerned with ending the menace of terrorism and extremism than it is with lining the pockets of favored national corporations. It requires a stronger vision than that of the religious ideologues who fight against us, a vision that comes not from an opposing version of God but rather from a human wisdom of compromise or disengagement. And it requires an acknowledgment that the act of war is itself a horrible thing, not an end in itself, not even a means to an end, just a continuation of humanity’s inability to live with itself in peace.