Back to the Real War—Part 5
I took Margaret’s suggestion and read through Anthony Cordesman’s “litany of errors” in Iraq. There wasn’t much there that I could find to disagree with. And while we’re talking about useful on-line resources for information about the war, let me recommend the weblog Intel Dump by Phil Carter, a young attorney and infantryman who is now on his second tour of duty in Iraq. He has a review up of George Packer’s The Assasins’ Gate that poses some interesting questions.
But I am still left with a question: now what?
I’m willing to stipulate to the mendacity, incompetence and venality of the current administration. They misled the American people to justify going to war. As Cordesman details, they have made a stunning number of serious mistakes in planning and execution that have cost lives, both American and Iraqi. I hope that the President and his party are repudiated by the American people at the polls and that his administration will be excoriated by future historians.
But I’m still left with the question: now what?
I opposed the initial war for reasons that will come as no surprise to any of Commonweal’s readers. But once we had destroyed any alternative form of civil order except our own armed forces, I felt we had an obligation to stay and clean up the mess we made. But every time someone at my parish tells me that a child or grandchild is heading off to Iraq, I get angry all over again. Because the people who made the mess are not the ones that are having to clean it up.
And I still don’t have an answer to my question: now what?
March 21, 2005, The Fordham Center on Religion and Culture co-sponsored a conference with the Kroc Center (UND) on the “Ethics of Exit: The Morality of Withdrawal from Iraq.” Most of the major issues pro and con were debated there. The transcript can be accessed at:
http://www.fordham.edu/Academics/Programs_at_Fordham_/Center_on_Religion_a/Fordham_Center_on_Re/The_Ethics_of_Exit/
A good part of the discussion focused on U.S. responsibilities for maintaining order and preventing civil war—a goal that is yet to be achieved. Another element in the discussion, particularly from the Iraqi participants was the responsibility of the U.S. to stay until asked to leave by an elected Iraqi government. Now that there is one, I wonder if and when that will happen.
The Iraqis may be sick of us and afraid of our long-term intentions, but they may be more afraid of the armed militias and the forces at work in breaking up the country.
Another topic of the conference, which may interest you, was jus post-bellum, that is, in light of the just-war framework, what responsibilities follow in a post-war situation? A panel moderated by Gerry Powers included Sohail Hashmi, Jean Bethek Elshtain, and Kenneth Himes laid out most of the important considerations.
Take a look.
And this from Patrick Lang’s site:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
“Iraqi unity and security are the ingredients for the start of an American military withdrawal, U.S. officials say. The U.S. commander in the country, General George Casey, wouldn’t specify yesterday when a pullout of the 133,000 troops might begin, only that his “general timeline” is intact.” Bloomberg
—————————————————————————————-
Translation: A withdrawal of American forces, even if only partial, is conditioned;
1- on the ability of the new government to hold together in the face of the centrifugal social forces tending to tear the country apart
2- On a rapid diminution of the violence (insurgent and inter-communal as the administration wants to see it) that afflicts Iraq.
The Bush Administration desperately wants to get most American troops out of the country starting this Summer. They can read the poll numbers in the US which virtually forecast a “bad patch” for the Republican Party both this Autumn and also in the next presidential election.
Unfortunately for them the time has passed in which they could control the actions of the government which they have gone to so much trouble to create. They insist that it is sovereign and it increasingly sees itself as sovereign whether or not it can maintain its unity and whether or not it can control the country’s territory.
In other words, the fate of the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq is now in the hands of; a group of grasping and fractious 3rd World politicians, various private armies belonging to sectarian groups and leaders, the emerging armed forces of a fledgling state and the will to fight of various Sunni insurgent groups.
The people who now have the least control over Iraq’s future are we Americans.
Let us all hope that the Iraqis believe that “they must all hang together or they will surely all hang separately.”
One wonders whether the media bears equal responsibility for this debacle. Fox News is the ultimate in irresponsibility but most of the others caved in. Thus the administration was able to isolate places like the Nation and the New York Times. We were supposed to have learned from Watergate. It has not been a prominent time for integrity.
What?!
The New York Times functioned to take Dick Cheney press releases and copy them nearly verbatim. By an overhyped, overconnected “top-reporter.”
The NYT promoted this war. Shame.
What to do?
Fast, pray, protest, resist, and use less oil.
Hello All,
I don’t know if this will surprise all of you or not, but I have always been opposed to the war. I was at the White House for a briefing (by Bush) the day Bush signed the order to invade and I heard nothing to convince me that it was a just action, and I argued publicly with Deal on my radio program against the invasion.
That said, now that we’re there, I , like Peter believe that we have an obligation to stay until some modicum of order is restored. As for the “what now?” question… of course the answer is no one really knows. But I think there are a few things that we shouldn’t do.
One thing I think we’re all long past doing is assigning blame. What’s the use in that? I have no love for the NYTimes, but does blaming them stop the killing?
I also don’t think our anger serves any purpose. It makes us feel like we’re doing something without doing anything. St. Alphonsus Liguori once asked someone who was struggling with anger if, upon seeing a man lying in the gutter, it made sense to go and lie in the gutter with him. That applies here. It’s anger that started the war. It’s anger that will continue to fuel it, because the people who support the war will continue to do so as an act of defiance against those who angrily oppose it.
So, what now? Pray. Fast. Protest. Write. Agitate. But I think above all else, its important to conquer the lust for anger and blame and self-righteousness that undermines the credibility of those who oppose US presence in Iraq.
Greg
Greg:
Maybe the president could set a good example and stop blaming the media for delivering so much bad news.
Sometimes I’ve wondered if people are angry enough–angry enough to pray, to write, to protest.
Margaret.,
LOL. You of all people are not seriously suggesting that we model ourselves after the President are you?
I happen to be among those who think the President looks like an idiot when he blames the press for his failures. And I would also respectfully suggest that the strategy does not suddenty become brilliant when it is used by the left.
As for people being angry enough to pray, write, and protest, I don’t think its about anger. Anger is a poor agent of change. First because it tends to be difficult to sustain and second because it tends to consume the host before the change occurs. If I may make a suggestion, I think that it would be useful to take a cue from the pro-life movement. If we’d just been driven by anger for the last 30+ years, we’d have flamed out a long time ago. Its all about conviction and persistence. Not anger.
Greg