Albright on Iraq.
Commonweal columnist and Huffington Post contributor Melinda Henneberger reports on former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee.
One of the sharpest exchanges of the day was between Albright and a
fellow Democrat. Responding to her suggestion that more should be done
to encourage religious leaders in the region to serve as peacemakers,
New York Representative Gary Ackerman seemed not to have gotten the
memo about how Democrats would do well to avoid seeming hostile to
believers in general: “I have no problem with people who pray,” he
said. “They can pray all day and talk to God. I have a problem with the
people God talks to…How do you compromise with people who are driven
either by evil or by religious convictions?”
Talking with people does not mean compromising with them, she
answered coolly, and “I have not turned into a religious mystic, and
I’m not a theologian.”
And what about Iraq? Is the president’s plan to increase troop levels any good? It’s “less a statement of policy than a prayer,” Albright explained. What’s left, then? What can be done?
“There are no good options.” She said she felt free to speak in a
way that had not been possible when she was in government service and
every word had to be vetted: “This is the first time I’m appearing
before you as myself.”
And she kept her word on that: Iraqi officials, she said, “have no
appetite after Abu Ghraib and Haditha for our lectures on human
rights.” Her general impression of escalating violence there, she
said, is that, “We have brought a lot of this on ourselves, and put our
armed forced in an absurd position,” in the middle of a civil war. “Is
our mission to play the hired gun with one side against the other.”
No. Or to keep the peace on all sides? Impossible. So, “I agree with
the president it would be a disaster to leave under the present
circumstances,” she said, “but it may also be a disaster to stay.”
Be sure to read the whole thing.
Unfortunately, we cannot leave a war we should have never started. And those who supported this preemptive war should not get a bye. In addition to the fanatic theocons there were plenty of moderates who were seduced by such inanities as Middle East strategy, spreading democracy and securing oil.
It was about oil and the fact that we could easily topple Sadaam. Rome and Europe had it right about the war. We in our belief in predestined prosperity thought that God had to be with us no matter how we acted. And did we act badly.
The democrats should be careful. The people are against this war and one might say that God is on their side. How is that for irogny?
Albright’s comments puzzle me: If we can do no good in Iraq, then why stay? If it will be a “brutal year” either way, then what is the point of keeping forces in Iraq, especially if Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are?
What does she think we will achieve by staying?
Jean, I think what Albright means is that there would be an all-out bloodbath if we were to pull out now. On the other hand, we may see a bloodbath if we stay — unless this “surge” can pull off a miracle. I suspect that Albright, like most Americans, is not the least bit optimistic here. “There are no good options.”
Sen, John Kyl of Arizona, a fervent administration supporter, was all over the airwaves yesterday defending the surge.
He carefully explained that seeing a lot of violence would be proof the surge is succeeding. I kept thinking if vilence should temporaily decrease, does that mean we are failing?
Much spin has been put forward this week by the President (60 minutes, PBS, etc. and
his congressional suporters, particularly mcConnel and Kyle.
But there are no good options and there will ve a continuous waste of human life.
I don’t see why anyone should give Albright any credence. She is the one, after all, who replied to Leslie Sthal’s question about the horrific impact of sanctions against Iraq in the ’90s by saying, “We think it’s a price worth paying” — an easy thing to say when the currency in question is other people’s lives. What a ghoul.
And besides, there are “good” options. Unfortunately, they require American humility, and a recogition that the United States did something morally, legally, and politically wrong. The U.S. must talk with Iran, Syria, and the insurgents. Every imperial power has said “we won’t talk with terrorists” — and then, months later, they talk with terrorists, having realized that they can’t get their backsides out of a terrible situation without directly engaging the other side(s).
My sense is that a lot of Americans resist the idea of a military pull-out because they don’t want to face the fact that we’ve made a mess we can’t clean up. We desperately want to pull this out of the tank. It’s a nice thought, but I can’t see how it’s possible.
I agree with Eugene that we have to talk to insurgents and other states in the region.
But the ugly and inevitable side of soliciting assistance from other parties was outlined in the NYT’s piece about Condaleeza Rice’s trip to Egypt earlier this week.
That story pointed out that where the U.S. used to have enough moral currency (and foreign aid) to shame the Egyptians about their corrupt cops, we’re going to have to set these “minor problems” aside to address the larger issues of stability.
Another story yesterday noted that Maliki says we can leave if we give him lots of guns and ammo.
I can’t help wondering if our actions in Iraq have left us in a position in which we’re going to have to do or ignore a lot more unsavory things before we can get out of Iraq.
God help us.
I heard one commentator on TV say that the only realistic option is to pull out of Iraq. If the Iraqis want a democratic government, they will just have to slug it out like everyone else has had to do elsewhere in times past.
As much as I hate to see bloodshed, I can’t necessarily disagree with such a course of action.
At least we got rid of Saddam. If I were a Sunni, now might be a good time to leave.
When I saw Bush’s interview at Camp David, I heard myself saying, “Good God, this guy’s downright dangerous!” This guy’s in La-la Land!!!
“Maliki says we can leave if we give him lots of guns and ammo.”
Right. We’ll jump right on his commands, yes indeed!
If we do give “lots of guns and ammo,” perhaps we should do so via airdrop — but only after we exit! Just one big bloody gory mess. We started it, and we can’t stop it.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our “leaders” would learn first? In Iraq, so much for “learning by experience.”