The truth about withdrawal

The New York Times carries this story:

Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

with this second sentence:

The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war.

This is an interesting assertion. Surely there can't be any Democrats who believe it in their power to "end the war"? After all, if any American had it in their power to "end the war" in Iraq there would be no need to debate troop withdrawal. Troops would be able to come home straight away.

The sentence reflects a widespread misunderstanding about the killing in Iraq. It is not primarily a conflict between Iraqis and Americans. It is Iraqi killing Iraqi. And far from ending that, precipitate US troop withdrawal is quite likely to make it worse.

Many Americans may wish to end their involvement, but they shouldn't whitewash withdrawal with dishonest rhetoric about ending war. 

Comments

[Simon Stephenson]

Maybe the United States and the United Kingdom should offer to pay massive reparations to Iraq for damage done there by a war that was embarked upon for the purpose of advancing US/UK interests. I'm sure that if the cessation of violence brought with it enough untainted overseas funding completely to reconstruct Iraq, the warring parties would soon come to an agreement.

And, in fact, the right thing would have been done. Perhaps to push things along a bit, the United Nations could threaten to impose trade sanctions on the USA/UK, in the way they would with other rogue states that have defied the world order.

[Rob Cordery Cotter]

This is largely true, the reason Sadam was there in the first place for so many years was that it took a Sunni strongman to squelch any internal dissent that would manifest as internecine strife. Sadam has gone to the gallows (good) but the proverbial dogs have now been unleashed, rounding them back up is clearly proving to be highly problematic.

For much of this we can thank our dear friend, Herr Von Wolfoblitz of whose brilliance in sending the entire Iraqi armed forces home without a job and without pay unquestionably precipitated much of the mayhem now in evidence. Thank also Donald Rumsfeld for wishing to do the war on the cheap and not initially committing enough troops.

Pity the Iraqis though, the Kurds have already abandoned ship, a re-invigorated Al Qaeda must be giddy with a second chance at forming up in a failed state, now it is up to the Shiite and Sunni factions to burn what is left of the house to the ground.

[Mike]

Europeans ought to take a step back and think very carefully on what they say. We in America are getting VERY tired of the anti-american witch hunt going on. We are also getting very tired of our government. The immigration bill currently going on in the Congress could be the final straw for our confidence in our government 9both defeatocrats and Reps). If that happens look for a very quick very strong pullback form intenational affairs and then you all will be responsible for yourselves. See what Russia, China and Islamic powers do with that.

[JHoward]

One of the more interesting trends in this our post modern political landscape, as Simon Stephenson partly illustrates, is the habitual need many have to reframe and rhetorize the entire Iraq war history, including it's run-up, in the terms of sheer, baseless revisionism.

In other words, anyone can reframe the discussion, such as it is, by merely making loud, rhetorical, somewhat hysterical claims, thus pushing the realists back against the wall again. I guess this is the nature of political strife, however it carries real-world implications, not least among them risk to troops. Asking a person if they stopped kicking the dog not so much so.

It'd be refreshing not to have to display countless times a decade of violated UN resolutions, overwhelming international support for reforming the place, and nearly universal internal US approval for going in, most notable among the former Administration's Democrat "leadership".

The Defeatocrats, as they're more rightly called, apparently find it easy to revise themselves with the weather. Today, having once raised the loudest cries for Saddam's head, they relign themselves with terrorist state Iran. Unfortunately, the Commander in Chief can make no such whimsical reversals.

Obviously the author is correct: There are horrific costs involved with withdrawl. I'd add that there are also few benefits.

Life is hard. Democrats should observe that so is honor.

[Mike]

JHOWARD,

agreed, the feelings on the left are as close to a mental condition as I have ever seen. Case in point, one of our soldiers was found in a canal died with gun shots to the head and chest. He was executed. Now America gets the blame for a few soldiers (who have been sent to jail themselves_) for subjecting its POW's to some mental/physical abuse. Those Iraqi POW were not shot and dump in the nearest river.

Where is the outcry for the execution of our POW's? As a rational, sane human you can not equate the two. But the left seems able and willing to do so. This is insanity.

[Simon Stephenson]

J HOWARD

I believe that the world should revolve around the concept of the pursuit of enlightened self-interest. To me, this means "Do well by doing good". It emphatically does NOT mean "Do well by doing what's good for yourself".

I am unconvinced, as is most of the non-US/UK world, that the basis for the invasion of Iraq was that this action would be of overall benefit to the world, nor that the envisaged post-war world situation would be an improvement on before to any country in the world other than the USA and its supporters.

Although I believe them to be wrong, I actually have no real problem with dealing with those who pursue unrestricted self-interest, unless they try to deceive me into thinking that what they are doing is, in design and result, for the benefit of all. It may be the case that 24/7 commercial advertising has conditioned a generation to believe that it's OK to lie through ones teeth for personal advantage, but I'm afraid that this isn't a latter-day moral that I've found myself able to accept.

I'd go further and say that nations that profess to being democratic are responsibile for the actions of their leaders. Populations need to understand that there is a moral imperative for them to choose as leaders those who best undertake their responsibility to humanity, not just their particular section of it. Skilled snake-oil salesmen are unlikely to fit the bill.