Ormus said:
The other question worth posing is whether our continued presence will make Iraq a better place.
The truth is, I don't know. I certainly understand what is at stake, but as I run all the scenarios in my head, I don't particularly see one that doesn't end in an Iraqi civil war. Post-Saddam Iraq is, at the end of the day, not all that much different than post-Tito Yugoslavia in that you had all these separate cultures forced to live together under one totalitarian roof for decades. Whether we continue to stay there for six months or six decades, are we ultimately doing little more than prolonging the inevitable?
I understand the idealism that neo-cons have when they look at the world. They look at WWII, where the U.S. is triumphant and is able to not only transform three enemies into three powerful allies with strong economies, but also where the U.S. takes a strong, dominant role in all affairs, such as with the Marshall Plan. This becomes all the more evident when you realize how many prominent figures in neo-conservatism are former "Truman Democrats." In fact, it's been mentioned that the ultimate father of neo-conservatism comes from one man: former U.S. Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA), and both Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were once part of his staff.
But while I ultimately can appreciate such idealism, it has to be tempered with reality. Iraq is not Germany, Italy, or Japan, with the main difference being that all three countries were organically-formed nation-states. Iraq, however, is an artificially created tribal super-state, ultimately. There is no loyalty to "Iraq," as much as there are loyalties to one's Shi'ite, Sunni, or Kurdish identity. The success of Iraq ultimately is tied to whether those three can be integrated, but we're dealing with grudges that run well over 1,000 years long, at least in terms of the animosity between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and Kurdish nationalism runs too strong to give up their ultimate goal of an independent Kurdish state.
Bush once stated that the "war on terrorism" is a "different kind of war." So why are we continuing to act as if this is still the Cold War? Until we can realize all of this, I don't see why our continued presence in Iraq will continue to be anything less than a colossal failure and a waste of human lives.
Well, has the US presence in Iraq beyond May 1, 2003 made Iraq a better place? Would the following things have happened without the US presence in Iraq the past 4 years?
1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi in Shia and Kurdish area's of Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam. Iraq, despite all the violence, still has a standard of living much higher than countries without any such violence, which is unusual historically.
The real problems of Yugoslavia erupted in Bosnia. Over a four year time period, 10% of the population was wiped out in the fighting between the three Ethnic groups, yet, US intervention stopped the fighting and Bosnia today has a higher standard of living than countries like China, Russia and Brazil. The point here is that civil war and endless conflict are NOT inevitable no matter what the history is. Iraq unlike Bosnia has been a country for nearly a century. Shia Arabs suffered most of the casualties in Iraq's war with Iran in the 1980s. The sectarian violence in Iraq is primarily isolated to an area within 30 miles of Baghdad, despite the fact that the ethnic groups are mixed all the way from Mosul in the North, all along the border with Saudi Arabia to Kuwait in the south. Less than half of the country is composed of area's where there is a clear majority of one ethnic group. The 1980s Iran-Iraq war shows that there is indeed a loyalty to the country as a whole by much of the population.
If Iraq was the failure that so many call it, the above accomplishments would never of happened. Progress continues every day in Iraq amid the violence. But completing this process is something that is going to take years.
Abandoning the process now potentially sets the stage for another war years later. It also would likely create a failed state in which Al Quada freely operate from, much like they did a few years after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. The planet will continue to depend on oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for years to come, and their security as well as global security will be heavily impacted if hostile forces are allowed to take power in Iraq again. A premature withdrawal of coalition troops on the ground could lead to levels of violence in Iraq on the level of the Bosnian civil war, which in a country the size of Iraq would mean millions of deaths.
While the violence in Afghanistan is less than Iraq, it still has many of the same fundemental problems as Iraq, yet I don't hear anyone calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
