I am a liberal who supported the decision to invade Iraq (the why will be a future blog). And I supported the idea that once we were in there, it became our responsibility to make it successful. Not just that it was in our interest to do so - but our responsibility.
I also think we could have made our time there very successful. I have a lot of respect for what the military has accomplished there in impossible circumstances. And I have a lot of respect for what the Iraqis themselves have accomplished.
But the bottom line is that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, & Rice are totally incompetent at managing this war. This is who we are stuck with for the next three years. So if the choice is Bush et al or leave - the better choice is to leave - by far. (And it's not just the civilians - General Franks made no plans for the peace. We needed a General Slim on the ground and a FDR in Washington. We weren't even close.)
Even if we put aside the gross incompetence of our civilian leaders of the war, there is still this. What is the fighting going to accomplish? Holding ground does no good in a war like this unless you can station a soldier every 10 feet across the entire country. Even in WWII, a war of invading and holding ground, the allies bypassed enemy strongholds from Rabul in the pacific to Brest in France. To fight everywhere is stupid.
And what is our goal in Iraq? The only argument I hear nowadays is to "stay the course." But to keep doing the same thing and expect different results is a form of insanity. Iraq has not progressed in terms of security on the ground, in terms of basic services, in terms of jobs. "Stay the course" is just ongoing carnage for all involved.
The other argument is we have to honor the fallen by continuing the battle. But that argument was used in Fredericksburg and all that lead to was more Union dead. We honor the dead by appreciating their sacrifice for us. We honor the living by not wasting their lives needlessly.
Finally, the Iraqi people need to decide what kind of country they want. Not decide where each has a vote and the protection of their own U.S. Army bodyguard. But decide in terms of putting their future and their life on the line. Will they step up to stop the insurgency or will they stay in their houses and let the bigger militia win.
If enough Iraqis want a civil war, there will be a civil war and we can do nothing to stop that. England has tried to force peace in Ireland for over 100 years and they are still there. You cannot force peace if enough of the populace prefers civil war for their aims.
On the flip side, after fighting a civil war, eventually enough people prefer peace to war that it ends. Lebanon seems to have reached that point. It took twenty years of civil war but they are now finding politics preferable to fighting.
As Gandhi said when told that the exit of the British would lead to civil war - yes but it will be our civil war. It is time to let the Iraqis decide their future. We were the catalyst that will let the Iraqis decide. But it is time for them to make their decision - and that means letting their actions, not our actions, make the decision.
And if Iraqi splits in to three pieces? Well Iraq's borders were Winston Churchill's invention - there was no "Iraq" before he invented it. If Czechoslovakia could choose to split in two (peacefully) and Yugoslavia into five (and counting), if the people of Iraq prefer to be three separate countries, that is their decision, not ours.
It's time to leave. Let the Iraqis choose their destiny.
Agree? Disagree? Please comment - I would like to get other viewpoints on this.
