Iraq isn't Black and White
| By ACDC - Nov 21st, 2005 at 1:10 am EST |
One of the annoying things about the Iraq debate is that it's often set in very stark black and white terms. On one hand, you could be labeled as "staying the course" -- which implies you supported the war at the outset, still support the war today, believe the war is going great, are fine with keeping the troops there indefinitely or whatever Bush et al decide, and fiercely attack anyone who disagrees with you as being an unpatriotic liberal coward who's supporting the terrorists. Alternatively, you could be in "cut and run" crowd, implying you believe the war was wrong to begin with, believe the war is still wrong today, feel the war never can and never could be won, want all troops out of Iraq immediately or the opposite of whatever Bush et al decide, and fiercely attack anyone who disagrees with you as being a neo-McCarthyite who unjustly accuses anyone who disagrees with him or her of being an unpatriotic liberal coward who's supporting the terrorists.
Which, as always, leaves those of us in the middle feeling very irritated.
Like a great deal of things in life, a viable strategy for Iraq will involve a balance between "staying the course" and "cutting and running." It's not compromising values or principles or anything like that--it's simply what most likely makes the most sense.
There are very few who actually advocate the extremes of any position. Many of the "stay the course" folks probably regret Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished." Rep. John Murtha, even though he's accused of cutting and running, isn't advocating a complete withdrawal -- his bill creates a quick-reaction force that will stay in the region so it can intervene if necessary. Translation: they're not coming home as soon as you think.
Or take any of the other millions of details that straddle the line between staying in and cutting and running. What if we left most of the counter-insurgency to the Iraqis but jumping in every now and then? Do military advisors count as troops? How about CIA operatives and special forces? Is stopping our counter-insurgency efforts and transferring our troops over to securing the Iraqi borders part of a "phased withdrawal"? How do you classify air support? What about switching existing troops in Iraq with foreign area specialists specializing in the Middle East? And so on.
A good deal of this relates to the question of who are we to judge what's happening in Iraq? None of us have access to classified documents. We're not military experts. Heck, most of us couldn't honestly be considered experts in globalization, economics, or the Middle East. We mostly rely on talking points put out by organizations with agendas or self-promoting bloggers. In that sense, it's tempting to use broad overarching arguments like "cut and run" or "Stay the course." But it's those finer points that ultimately become policy.
As progressives and American citizens, what we can do is articulate our values--values independent of the details and effectiveness of a policy--e.g. I may not know how effective torture is, but I think it's wrong regardless. We can demand competence, agendas, plans, and explanations. Our behavior determines how the world perceives us--e.g. voting Bush out will probably go a long way to changing the way the world views our intentions. To a certain degree, we can even affect the rest of the world more directly--e.g. conserving energy reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Yet these are all broad strokes. They're important, but they don't really put us in a position to answer a question such. That's why the question of withdrawal makes me queasy. The question of withdrawal isn't one of values or leadership. If anything, our values would dictate staying in Iraq ("spreading democracy" or "fixing what we broke" depending on you view it). The arguments are about whether we can pull this off. And on such issues, it's hard to take a hard line one way or another, because unlike torture, there isn't a simple moral imperative. We can demand that our leaders do better (and replace them in 06 and 08), but we have to be willing to accept a lot the details falling in between withdrawal and staying the course.
Which, as always, leaves those of us in the middle feeling very irritated.
Like a great deal of things in life, a viable strategy for Iraq will involve a balance between "staying the course" and "cutting and running." It's not compromising values or principles or anything like that--it's simply what most likely makes the most sense.
There are very few who actually advocate the extremes of any position. Many of the "stay the course" folks probably regret Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished." Rep. John Murtha, even though he's accused of cutting and running, isn't advocating a complete withdrawal -- his bill creates a quick-reaction force that will stay in the region so it can intervene if necessary. Translation: they're not coming home as soon as you think.
Or take any of the other millions of details that straddle the line between staying in and cutting and running. What if we left most of the counter-insurgency to the Iraqis but jumping in every now and then? Do military advisors count as troops? How about CIA operatives and special forces? Is stopping our counter-insurgency efforts and transferring our troops over to securing the Iraqi borders part of a "phased withdrawal"? How do you classify air support? What about switching existing troops in Iraq with foreign area specialists specializing in the Middle East? And so on.
A good deal of this relates to the question of who are we to judge what's happening in Iraq? None of us have access to classified documents. We're not military experts. Heck, most of us couldn't honestly be considered experts in globalization, economics, or the Middle East. We mostly rely on talking points put out by organizations with agendas or self-promoting bloggers. In that sense, it's tempting to use broad overarching arguments like "cut and run" or "Stay the course." But it's those finer points that ultimately become policy.
As progressives and American citizens, what we can do is articulate our values--values independent of the details and effectiveness of a policy--e.g. I may not know how effective torture is, but I think it's wrong regardless. We can demand competence, agendas, plans, and explanations. Our behavior determines how the world perceives us--e.g. voting Bush out will probably go a long way to changing the way the world views our intentions. To a certain degree, we can even affect the rest of the world more directly--e.g. conserving energy reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Yet these are all broad strokes. They're important, but they don't really put us in a position to answer a question such. That's why the question of withdrawal makes me queasy. The question of withdrawal isn't one of values or leadership. If anything, our values would dictate staying in Iraq ("spreading democracy" or "fixing what we broke" depending on you view it). The arguments are about whether we can pull this off. And on such issues, it's hard to take a hard line one way or another, because unlike torture, there isn't a simple moral imperative. We can demand that our leaders do better (and replace them in 06 and 08), but we have to be willing to accept a lot the details falling in between withdrawal and staying the course.
!
Comments are closed for this post.