|
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 01:55 AM by Sparkly
The Iraq fiasco is anything but simple, and yet the national dialogue about it (even on sites like DU) is often over-simplified, to the point of black/white "Stay" (forever) or "Go" (immediately)!
There are many points of agreement, across the nation and across parties: there is essentially no argument that the invasion and occupation have been an unmitigated disaster, that the current course is fubar; that the military is being misused at best; that a change is required to stem the violence with a goal of disengaging our military.
Dismiss the nutcases who think nuking the middle east is a good idea -- they're off the radar (and off their rockers). I dare say: Most Americans do NOT want bloodshed; do NOT want continued killings of innocent Iraqis; do NOT want to keep crying at the sight and thought of wounded and murdered children! Most DO want to minimize the damage we've caused; DO want to have our troops come home; DO want PEACE.
The question, here on DU and in the national debate, is less "what" than "HOW."
There's not going to be any great "victory." The term "winning" is relative now, and it means stability, if not security, if not PEACE, in Iraq.
PEACE is the goal I believe we all want. But peace doesn't just happen; it often doesn't come easily. Peace has to be WAGED, and it's harder to wage than war. War is something the military can do alone; peace is something the military alone can't accomplish. It requires confronting people, face to face, at leadership levels; it requires multiple levels of strategy, from legal to economic to political and yes, military as a last resort. Weak leadership relies on the military first and foremost to wage peace, which we should know by now does not work.
It would take volumes -- and people far more informed than me -- to get into all the elements and options of the current disaster of Iraq, but I'll try to boil what I see down to three main points, in hopes that we on DU can move the discussion further from "stay" or "go."
1. It's Not a Vacuum
One point of view holds that immediately withdrawing or redeploying troops out of Iraq (which are different things, btw) will assuredly lessen the violence there. If it were that obvious and simple an equation, there'd be no debate here. It's undoubtedly clear that BushCo's incredibly irresponsible invasion of US troops into Iraq instigated the violence there now; it's also clear that the strategy of fighting violence with violence is doomed to fail (especially when we don't know who we're fighting, who they're fighting, and why). But it's not a simple conclusion of logic that removing the troops alone -- today, tomorrow, or next week -- will create peace.
We all share the same goal, but this view denies the reality of the conflicts underlying the violence in Iraq right now, just as surely as BushCo denies those realities when they claim it's just Al Qaeda (or just an ideological struggle of "good vs. evil"). "Get Out Now" says either, "It's Iraq vs. US" (so if we leave, there's no more problem!), or, "It's Iraq vs. Iraq now, so let's go!" (Hey, sorry for ripping your country to shreds, too bad about your kids, best of luck!)
If the goal is to create peace and minimize bloodshed, murder, and the force of violence against innocents, this view tragically ignores the probability that the chaos in Iraq may inflame further, ignite in neighboring countries, and blaze into a regional (perhaps even world) war. The example of Vietnam does NOT apply here; the conditions are NOT the same, at ALL, in this regard.
Our problem is that the argument has remained on this level -- the MILITARY level, and "stay or go" -- just as BushCo wants it. WAGING PEACE does involve our military, but goes beyond it. The military is just one tool. Weak leadership relies on the military to do all the work IT needs to do.
So how is peace waged, on any level? Think of the microcosm: How do you wage peace with rivaling siblings, or contentious coworkers, or in any other relationships? The basic process, despite the complications affecting procedure, is simple: you LISTEN and TALK; TALK and LISTEN. International conflicts and diplomacy come down to our commonality as human beings -- what we want, and what we're willing to sacrifice.
2. It's About Agreements
War is about conflicts; peace is about agreements.
People won't put down their weapons if they believe they need them to defend themselves; people won't stop retaliating if they believe retaliation is the only hope for stopping further attacks against them. Thus violence begets violence.
What our military is tasked to do in Iraq now is squelch violence with more violence. But it's impossible to create "peace" by firing against everybody who's firing; it's impossible to try to build hope in the form of rebuilding when two weeks later, the buildings are reduced to dust again.
Our troops often don't even know who they're fighting, why the people they're fighting are fighting, or what the issues are. Beyond the three sectarian divisions, there are a multitude of other fights between families, over territory, involving economic issues, retaliations, we can't even know. There is NO military solution to that.
Meanwhile, we're "training Iraqi troops" and I contend we have no idea who we're training -- our government is too desperate to cover up their fiasco with "standing them up so we can stand down." Who are we training, to do what? Finally tonight I heard some expert on teevee confirm it, saying we can't send certain Iraqi forces into certain areas, because, ya know, they might have some proclivity about fighting the people in that particular area. More indication that we are NOT training a force for Iraq unification.
The only solution is to bring people to the table to TALK. Yes, TALK, believe it or not! What a concept! That's the primary vehicle for WAGING PEACE! No, it may not always work, but it's always worth a try before letting things resolve themselves by violence. An "honest broker," carrying a "big stick," can listen, form concensus, broker deals, give everybody a stake in the matter as a positive motivation, AND a threat in the matter as a negative consequence of breaking the deal.
"Out Now" precludes all of that. It turns our backs on the most vulnerable people in Iraq, leaving them prey to whatever warlords have the greater arsenal. It leaves every minority, and countless children, women, elderly, and others without means of defense, to be treated in ways I don't believe need discussion here.
Yes, it brings home OUR troops. Yes, this fiasco has had a devastating effect on them, as well. But do we, as a nation, have NO responsibility to the people of Iraq we've left mourning, and fending for what's left of their families, their hope, their nation? Or do we have a responsibility to TRY to establish means of discussion and broker peace?
3. The Military Matters
Our military is basically a "big stick" (allowing us to "walk softly"). It has been tasked to do things in Iraq that it CAN not do. It's not a diplomatic entity, a political force, an economic power, a legal agency, etc.
It can hold ground, temporarily, while political deals are worked out; it can pave paths for humanitarian aid, enable arrests, and beat back genocidal forces; it can defend our soil from invasion. That's NOT what it's doing in Iraq -- it's tasked with taking the place of failed leadership, and that it can NOT do.
In WWII, our military became the pivot-point for our nation's political and economic clout; that was through the blood, sweat and tears of our parents and grandparents, male and female -- the "Greatest Generation." The draft was abused in Vietnam and then abolished, and it seems it's now easy to forget that ancestral sacrifice and imagine we were always this easily assured of our prominence, our democracy, our ability to conquer all foes and thus our ability to proclaim pacifism, preach from a pulpit that separates the 'volunteer' military from the rest of American society...
In WAGING PEACE, the military matters -- despite its misuse by neocons.
In Iraq, our military deployments can be leverage for peace. For example, there's a battle going on, we bring both sides to the table, set up conditions for disarming, and those include US troops leaving that area; we pull back and *redeploy* on the condition that peace remains, and stand ready. In another battle, say between sects or rival families or economic foes or whatever, the side with the lesser arsenal or money refuses to compromise unless their families' safety is assured; we promise to *deploy* there to enforce the agreement.
The Iraq Civil War will NOT end if we simply "withdraw;" it will not end if we simply "stay the course." It's NOT about the MILITARY -- the military is only one part of the means to an end. And the end is not a "win" -- it's a salvage, a minimization, a cut of losses, a way out that preserves all the lives and respect we can muster.
BushCo can NOT do any of it. They are floundering pathetically gasping for air, going back on all their blusters, grasping for any branch they can hang on to for the sake of "legacy," but they're drowning.
There's only so much our Congressional majority can do, as well. They have a duty to hold responsible those who lied us into this, but they alone can't "get us out."
That requires a Commander in Chief who can wage peace.
That requires a nation who understands what it takes to wage peace.
Because WAGING PEACE is the only solution.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
