The Problem with Iraq

We have come to view our victory or defeat in Iraq as just that – a win or loss on our own part. We have forgotten about the great vested interest had by the people in their own country. It has become personal. What started as an offensive to protect ourselves from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny has morphed into a desire to draw the war on terrorism away from our own shores. We seek now to fight our war in already conflict-drenched Middle Eastern lands.

But Saddam is gone now, and he certainly does not have any WMDs with which to hurt us. The people on Iraq no longer bear the yoke of his oppression. And yet we are still there, losing brave men and women in small but seemingly unlimited installments. What had begun as an ostensibly objective and prudent plan has disintegrated into a reactionary and zealous desire to get the terrorists in Iraq before they can get us here. Never mind that as a direct result of our actions, Iraq undoubtedly contains more bona fide terrorists now than it did before the invasion. Never mind that we have now stuck our oar into an already resentful Middle East, ensuring that even more moderate Muslims see our goals as imperialistic and patronizing. Never mind that we have sacrificed what could have grown into an important ally after a timely and natural death of Saddam Hussein. He had never had an ironclad grip over the country; too many of the citizens remembered the freedom and prosperity that were theirs before his dictatorship. No – despite all this our official policy is still to demand an unconditional victory from our war.

In short, we have grown too close and heated when it comes to Iraq. We are blinding ourselves to the value that concession and accommodation could bring to the situation. In a scene disturbingly reminiscent of the missteps taken in Vietnam a generation ago, we are determined to press forward with force, believing that we need to witness an ultimate defeat of an opponent that was never really ours to begin with. We have committed ourselves to a protracted battle with no end in sight, refusing to negotiate until we see terrorism driven totally from Iraqi boundaries. Our continued presence, however, seems to inspire little beyond escalating violence and a renewed determination of quasi-terrorists from around the Middle East to fight us to the death. A Baghdad once full of palm trees and sidewalk cafes may be Saddam-free, but it is also riddled with bullets and an aura of death and violence. And to top it off, we have a presidential candidate who has vowed to continue the fight for 100 years if need be. We have lost sight of the reality that concession does not always spell defeat.

In many ways we have achieved what we set out to do in Iraq. Saddam is gone and there are no weapons of mass destruction. But because those goals were flawed from the beginning, we have also created a great mess in the meanwhile. As much as we can ultimately benefit from analyzing those mistakes so as to avoid them in the future, we need also to look to the requirements of the future. What we need to do now, our professed objectives achieved, is to begin the process of pulling out to let the Iraqis determine the course of their own country. If they decide that course is one that ends in democracy, so much the better. But with centuries of a history, customs and a philosophy so different from our own, if they decide they prefer another course, we must be ready to accept that. Our role cannot be that of a sculptor taking a damaged bit of clay and smashing and kneading it until it miserably forms the shape we like. The bottom line is that peace in Iraq is best for everyone – better for us and better for the whole Middle East.

Let the Iraqis quibble over their differences against a backdrop of relative peace, as we had the luxury to do for nearly two decades before September 11^th. More true and lasting solutions come out of equable peacetime negotiations than under the duress of conflict. If we desire democracy in that part of the world, let us instead offer up our best and most appealing version of what we preach, and allow a committed people choose to follow in our footsteps. We will find more genuine allies and partners that way that flexing our muscles as global cops or bullies.

In any case, the bellicosity of the bin Ladens of the world is losing favor across the Islamic world. Research shows that devout Muslims throughout the Middle East support tactics like suicide bombings and kidnappings less and less than in years past, preferring to deal with disagreements through political channels. The militant Hezbollah and Palestinian groups have seen support from Syrian and Saudi Arabian neighbors fizzle. Even the most conservative of the Muslim ruling clerics are prepared to make concessions; Saudi Arabia plans to send its first women’s Olympic team to London in 2012. If we can show ourselves of the world as a wise and magnanimous nation, giving the Iraqis our assistance but letting them decide their future as befits their traditions and values, we can seize upon this shifting allegiance and form important bonds with a host of Arab countries. This in turn would allow us not only to contain the threats posed by Iran, but to involve the Middle East in the rebuilding of a country to which it has a significant stake it. This will of course be complicated, but if our true objectives are a stable, productive and allied Iraq and an end to the threat of terrorism, this path affords us at least the chance of success.