Iraq War Exit Strategies (Part 1)

In 'till we win (G.W. Bush), orderly exit (most Democratic and Republican candidates for office), immediate and safe withdrawal (Military Families Speak Out), immediate withdrawal-screw Iraq (too many voices, with no logical plan)... These are the sentiments I most frequently hear amongst my friends and associates. So which strategy is right? None of them or all of them?

Without defining what 'win', 'orderly', 'immediate', or 'safe' mean, how can any of these policies be the best or most appropriate one? Mr. Bush seems to define a win as achieving all military and nation building objectives, at whatever the cost (because we have to stop the terrorists over there, before they come here). Our Senators and Representatives would like to define 'orderly' as whatever politically expedient way they can show support for our troops without tipping over the basket of eggs, that represent our sorrowful diplomatic status with the rest of the middle-east and radical Islam. Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization I belong to, takes a very diplomatic approach to 'immediate and safe' by wanting an immediate conclusion with the reality that we will not, in the near-term abandon Iraq, and that significant withdrawal would jeopardize those that remain. The 'screw Iraq crowd is just to uneducated about reality to spend the time trying to categorize their position.

I am not a great enough mind to develop all of the arguments on each side of these issues. But I will make some observations that color my view of the obvious arguments and how we should approach them. First, we do not live in a vacuum, and therefore for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Second, like the sign on a fine china shop says on the door, 'You break it, You own it' (I only wish Mr. G.H.W. Bush had taken G.W. to one of those shops). Third, but probably not last, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. Enough of the adages, I think the point is served, that our Leadership has undertaken choices which have an impact on our Soldiers and the American people, and will have a long lasting effect on us.

Our concerns with the war is little served by the question of 'should we have entered into a war in Iraq'? We already broke it, and now that we own it, what are we going to do with the million shards of hate, distrust, dishonesty, dis ingenuousness, deceit, and corruption that have evolved. The piece we broke was not a pretty piece (after all Saddam Hussien will go down as one of the most brutal dictators in the modern age), But it was the piece that held together the collection of all the vying parts of secular and sectarian forces together.

Perhaps, a greater issue, is the affect our decisions have had on the middle-east, in general, and our ability to deal with radical Islam, specifically. For it was radical Islam that was the rallying point of our President, that led us into this quagmire. 'Fight the terrorists over there, before we have to fight them here'. At least that was the excuse, after WMD was eliminated as a righteous excuse for invading a sovereign country. With Saddam invading and declaring wars on Kuwait and Iran, he at least proved that he was an equal-opportunity despot. His Sunni centered Baath party waged war on Sunni dominant Iran, and he was able to mollify the Shii' majority in a Sunni ruled dictatorship. What other stabilizing affects he had on other secular oriented Islamic kingdoms may be far beyond our Western understanding. What is clear is that every thing we have done to insert ourselves in the middle-east, either to support Israel against Palestine and Jordan, to support an illegal overthrow of the government, by the Shah of Iran, or to gain favor with the Saudi by selling weapons in return for bases, to monitor and control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc., has done nothing but inflame Muslims, regardless of their secular distinction. When we push one way, an Islamic force pushes back another way.

The last issue is 'nation building'. We are so naive to believe that the method we have adopted to rule our country, is so superior that it is absolutely intuitive that every other country in the world would benefit by our form of government. Democracy, in any form similar to ours, has only existed for a mere three hundred years amongst the French, English, and US. Hundreds of cultures, thousands of countries for five Milena have existed for more consecutive years, than our form of democracy. We have been quite successful showing that other forms of government don't work, but we have very little evidence that we know anything about how to 'install' our form of government. That would say to me that what does work is much more dependent on culture, than ideal. And, at best, the most we can hope for is an amalgamation of what is culturally acceptable to those that are governed, and the ideal of how those that are governed should be respected.

In Part 2 of this post I will discuss some specifics of how other's portray our strategy and how they predict that strategy will affect our ability to extricate ourselves from this debacle.