(Note: This is a re-write of an entry I put up yesterday morning. The other entry was pulled when I realized that I had made some wrong assumptions about Mr. Auster's position on the Iraq war. To that individual who made me aware of this, I thank you. And to those of you who might have read the other entry before it was pulled, I offer my sincerest apologies, as well as to Mr. Auster. -TM)
I have generally been a supporter of the Iraq war from the beginning. My reasoning for supporting that war may be summed up as follows:
After 9/11 the United States was left in a state of vulnerability while the muslim world had gotten a shot of adrenaline by the witness of those events. Whether Saddam had WMDs was never the issue with me. The issue was whether he would use them against us if he had them, and/or, if he could acquire them. And whether he was willing to put aside differences with other rogue regimes and combine forces with them to attack us, his and their common enemy while we were in a perceived state of vulnerability.
I think the answer to those questions is fairly obvious, and that's the reason I supported the invasion and overthrow of the Saddam regime...
That said, this idea of freeing the Iraqis/installing democracy has always been a thorn in my side, and though others would disagree with me, my belief has always been that the administration and the republicans were pressured into announcing these goals as of primary importance simply to garner support for the war. Yes; I believe President Bush is a true believer in the idea of democratizing the muslim world, and Iraq is his grand experiment. But my point is that I don't believe he and the republicans would have so readily announced that as a priority and a primary reason for invading Iraq had the democrats and the ultra-liberals not manipulated them into it by their anti-war rhetoric.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe I'm just recalling the history of the debate differently than it actually occured. That's fine, I don't always think I'm right. But the point is those goals should have never been a priority for us. And whether the administration was manipulated into announcing them as priorities or not, it should never have been so because it puts us in a position where either we're to stay in Iraq indefinately, or we are to remove ourselves having apparently failed in our objectives thus weakening us in the eyes of the muslim world and providing them with yet another shot of adrenaline.
With all of that said I have of late been contemplating whether we, the United States, have an alternative available to us that would satisfy our ends which to me boil down to self-preservation, not Iraqi democratization. I have always had a strong bias against any proposed "exit strategy" for Iraq based on the idea that they are generally liberal strategies which seem to pay no mind to the problems associated with simply retreating and effectively declaring defeat for ourselves and victory for our enemies. But I've recently been turned on to an "exit strategy" that acknowledges these problems and provides a means of dealing with them.
Now, I'm a realist in the sense that I understand that America and Americans are not prepared to embrace certain aspects of what this strategy entails. Indeed, were we so prepared, we would never have gotten into this situation to begin with. So it takes a radical shift in thinking. But as the author of this strategy might say in reply to someone like myself who might question whether Americans are prepared to accept and embrace such a strategy, which to some would be counted as wacky and radical: "How can we get there unless we talk about it and propose it and show this to people as a real alternative to our current hopeless approach?" It's a good point, because if this strategy has any merit to it at all, then we should at least accept it as a viable option. If it has a great deal of merit, then it should be adopted as our policy. And the only way to answer those questions is to first get it out there for people to see.
So, I will quote the author, Mr. Auster, from his entry posted at VFR yesterday wherein he has provided the link to the separationist strategy.
Auster writes:
"Either way, we have to leave Iraq. What must be rejected is leaving Iraq in the Democratic Party's way, in a way that looks like a defeat, which would encourage our jihadist enemies everywhere. Here, then, is what I propose. We should leave Iraq, while announcing that our former policy of Muslim democratization was a mistake and that our new policy is not to spread democracy to the Muslim world, but to stop and reverse the spread of Muslims to our world. Instead of acting like some pathetically distracted, naive do-gooder, like the James Stewart character in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we will look like a tough country shedding our liberal illusions about the Muslims and determined to defend our own safety. Instead of being a defeat, such a withdrawal will be part of a radical strategic shift in which we leave our foolish past behind and immeasurably strengthen our own position." ("What we need to do in Iraq," VFR, July 13, 2007).
Whether this stategy has any merit to it is left to you to decide. But I've done my part to get it out there, and I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
-DW
0 comments:
Post a Comment