A Pilgrim’s Digression

There are several news stories across the Internet today about the “foes” of President Bush’s troop surge plan, who are apparently uniting in an effort to derail the troop increase.

Maybe I should not have been surprised at the opposition from Democrats, but the strength of Republican opposition is really quite startling. I fully support a Congressman’s right to change his or her mind, but really it’s going a bit too far to oppose a troop increase now, when not so long ago many Senators were calling for a troop increase.

Some might say this change of heart on the part of Republicans and Democrats has more to do with hypocritical political posturing than true belief. It is truly disgusting to watch. The proverb about rats and sinking ships comes to mind. One might also think of hyenas ripping apart a wounded animal.

Sheer selfish opportunism, that’s all one can say about it. Hagel, Warner, Pelosi, Murtha…the whole lot of them are thinking only of their own hides. And as a result, they are probably going to lose their hides in the next election. Some Americans have a long memory, especially Conservatives. Conservatives are not likely to forget that some Republican Senators supported a troop increase until President Bush proposed just such a policy.

I’ve been meaning for some time to write about this issue, as well as my opinions on the anti-war rally in Washington, this past Saturday.

On the one side of the coin are spineless Senators who believe that a vote on a non-binding resolution opposing the President means something, or that it will satisfy constituents that Congress is doing its job. Basically, all a non-binding resolution is, is an opinion poll of Congress. And if Chuck Hagel thinks an opinion poll of his colleagues means something, he has been in the Senate too long.

On the other side of the coin are protesters who are shouting “withdraw” without thinking of the consequences. Neither side see the issue as I think it ought to be looked at: what about the Iraqis?

Frankly–and this is going to sound cold–but I don’t think saving American lives, or making sure those who have already died “did not die in vain,” ought to be uppermost in our minds right now, as a reason to stay in Iraq.  If the only reason we are staying in Iraq is to justify our original rationale for going in, it is  not a morally just war.  Nor is it ethically correct to withdraw on the pretext of saving American lives, while Iraqis continue to die at an ever greater rate.

We destroyed Iraq and we cannot seem to rebuild it. There are thousands of Iraqis dead–many thousands more than the Americans who died on 9/11 or since the invasion of Iraq. Every day, 50, 60, a hundred Iraqis die in violence that but for our actions following the invasion in March of 2003, would possibly still be alive today.

How many Americans do we lose daily in Iraq? Sometimes none, sometimes 2 or 3. My heart hurts every time I read of an American family who loses a son or daughter, mother or father, to the violence in Iraq. Reading these accounts, I often think of a scene from one of my favorite war movies, We Were Soldiers, in which the families of the first Americans killed in Vietnam receive their telegram. It’s a gut-wrenching scene, one being repeated, albeit in modern form, all across the country every week in America.

The Iraqis are suffering too; their country is in deep turmoil because of the constant death. And yet we have Senators in the United States Congress, and supposedly liberal citizens in the streets, posturing on an issue that basically comes down to whether or not trying to stabilize Iraq and preserve Iraqi lives is worth the potential sacrifice of more American lives.

I contend that it is worth it. We created the problem; we have to fix it. Ethically, it is our duty.

I wonder if those protesters who stood at the Capitol Saturday, and the Senators at work inside the buildings on Capitol Hill, would support troops being sent to Darfur to stop the genocide there? If so, why is Iraq not viewed as a humanitarian cause worthy of American intervention?

That’s what Iraq has become, in my mind. It is fast approaching the status of a genocidal ethnic war.

And if we can’t stop it, then there is no point in intervening in Darfur, or anywhere that ethnic strife has overcome the rule of law.

Look: Iraq is a mess. The recent killing of some 250 to 300 “terrorists” in Iraq is being touted on the talk show hosts as a major victory, yet what it reveals is troubling. Americans did most of the killing, not Iraqis; and American air support especially raised the death toll. I am not even convinced that the death toll is accurate, considering it apparently includes women and children. I simply don’t believe military accounts of kill numbers, especially following from an air strike where bodies are often blown apart.

Even more troubling is that the “insurgents” killed were not what we have traditionally come to view as “insurgents.” The people killed were a cult of both Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims who believed by killing religious leaders, the apocalypse could be brought about.

These were not Shiites revenging themselves on Baathists and Sunnis, or Sunnis trying to disrupt Shi’ite control of the Iraqi government. The underlying complexity of the “point” of the violence seems to belie an easy naming schema for the combatants, let alone an easy solution.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi on Iraqi violence continues, no matter how many enemies we kill.

But what are we to do? Withdraw, whether immediate or phased in, would ultimately leave the innocent Iraqi civilians to the mercy of these dogs. Not increasing troops strength would have the same effect.

I simply do not think that is a desirable outcome.

I make no claim to knowledge about how the Mid-East would descend into anarchic war upon our withdraw. In fact, I look upon this as no more likely than the claim that all of Southeast Asia would fall, if Vietnam fell to communism.

What concerns me is the apparent disregard for our responsibility to a people whose country is imploding. If Democrats and Republicans have a better idea for stabilizing Iraq, that does not involve American force, I’d like to hear that plan. If it sounds reasonable, I will support a withdraw and the implementation of this diplomatic solution.

I do not expect any response to that request to be forthcoming.

There is no plan, other than to literally soldier on a little farther. If the application of more force yields no results, then we withdraw and face the fact that we did all we could, but we failed.

Reading stories about the protest this past weekend, and today reading stories about Senators puffing themselves up on their own hot rhetoric opposing a troop increase, makes me want o ask them all, impatiently, “What do you want? What do you people want?”

“Bring the troops home,” the protesters chant. Tim Robbins put it another way: “This past November the American people sent a resounding signal to Washington, D.C., and the world. We want change. We want this war to end. And how did Bush respond? Twenty-one thousand, five hundred more will risk their lives for his misguided war.”

Is that all it’s about? Saving American lives? This was a war begun with the selfish motive of fighting terrorists “over there,” on Iraqi soil, so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Is that war begun so dubiously to end with us withdrawing our troops and consigning those same Iraqis to even more death and destruction?

How is that a morally just policy? I am going to generalize here, but conservatives tend to view the world from a pragmatic, selfish perspective, while liberals are supposed to be altruistic at the core. How can liberals support a policy of withdraw that will almost certainly lead to more Iraqis dying, and possibly the whole country descending into genocidal civil war?  Is proving George Bush misguided really that important to liberals?

Much of what Jane Fonda and the protesters say is true: we did not learn the lesson of Vietnam; the occupation has been botched; the war never should have been started to begin with. But all that begs the question, “How does withdrawing make all of that right?”

None of the response, from left or right, makes any sense to me.

I hate to say this, since I am no fan of George W. Bush. I am proud that I never voted for him, not one time. But I am glad that the President can forge ahead with his plan, no matter how many non-binding resolutions Congress passes.

I’ve often accused the President of wishful thinking on Iraq. We’ve never really had a good strategy, other than to hope and pray that the Iraqis would stabilize their country…and indeed that is wishful thinking.

But the Congress has nothing better than that same kind of wishful thinking to offer. According to a story in the Washington Post, Senators Untie on Challenge to Bush Plan, Nancy Pelosi is paraphrased as saying that “Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had told her during her visit to Baghdad last week that, with sufficient funds, his government could stabilize Iraq in four to six months and allow 50,000 U.S. troops to be deployed out of hotbeds of sectarian violence.”

Said Pelosi, “The Iraqis must build their own country, and we have paid a big enough price.”

Frankly, if Democrats are trusting the word of Malaki that he can bring the violence under control, they are as deluded as the President himself. Perhaps more so. The President’s faith in Maliki often seems worn out, these days.

As for America having “paid a big enough price”…well, Ms. Pelosi, tell that to the nine Iraqis killed so far today. Tell it to the families of the 34,452 Iraqis killed in 2006.