Thursday, March 09, 2006

Iraq

I have a confession to make. I once supported the current War in Iraq.

Politically and intellectually, I grew up on talk radio. I was reading and listening to Rush Limbaugh freshman year of high school. Sure, our country had problems—so said the radio and the books—but Rush was right and conservatism provided the solution to the liberal mess created by that jerk Clinton. Life wasn't good, but everything would be fine once the republicans were in power.

Then one of the worst possible things happened. Bush won the 2000 presidential election and began to slowly expose the republican party as a sham. Sorry to break the news to all you ditto-heads, but I cannot hide the truth from my readers. The current republican party is conservative in name only.

Unfortunately, I had not yet reached this epiphany when it came time to go to war. I listened closely as right-wing pundits laid out the case over and over again. Although most of it made sense to me, in all honesty I had never really thought about war, which was something distant, and certainly in the past. The Red Badge of Courage was a compelling read, but I had no intention of playing the part of Henry Fleming, even if this war did not claim the title of “civil”.

The sheer lunacy of those in opposition to the Iraq War ensured that I would remain a good little republican, at least for the time being. Unfortunately, Mr. Limbaugh had instilled in me more than strict faith in conservatives; he had taught me to think for myself.

Thus, I came to where I am now. The war should not have been fought, for one can never perpetuate an evil so that a greater evil is avoided. One must actually do good. While well-intentioned, the war against Iraq was an immoral one, perpetrated by American aggressors and sanctioned by a “conservative” president and a Congress too cowardly to exercise their constitutional responsibility in declaring war.

The War in Iraq is going to be difficult to win, if not impossible. One big problem with supplanting democracy in is that by nature, it is something which is grown from within. Certainly it is possible that Iraqis could rise up to support the democratic regime, but as of yet they have not done so. Although we toppled Saddam, allowing the majority Shiites to gain power, they do not appear willing to bear the responsibility that comes with it. As Pat Buchanan notes, “Shiite conduct calls to mind the remark of the Austrian prime minister after Tsar Nicholas I intervened to save the Hapsburgs from revolution in 1848: "We shall astonish the world with our ingratitude."”

Loyal republicans point to the near eighty percent of Iraqis who voted as a sign that things are going well, but so long as the United States military is needed to hold the country together, things are not going well enough.

The far bigger problem in Iraq is its sectarianism. We can all agree that Saddam was a mean-spirited dictator, but for all his war crimes, he did manage to keep three groups of people together, despite their vehemence for each other. The Kurds were not pleased with Saddam's decision to gas them of course, but for the most part, Iraq was a stable country—if tyrannical—under the expunged despot.

As long as there is still a chance that the Iraqis can prove themselves capable of self-government, we owe it to the people to stay for as long as they ask. Two wrongs do not make a right; the fact that we botched things by going in does not make us right in bailing out.

I hope that I am wrong about Iraq, but if the republicans are found to be wrong, one wonders whether apologies will be forthcoming, or whether blame will be placed upon those of us who do not support the immoral war.

No comments: