(Re: Iraq) Volante Editorial Disregards Common Sense
What's up with the
Volante? It seems like every week they dedicate space on their Opinion
page to kool-aid drinking Republicans. This week? An absurd assertion that leaving Iraq is worse than staying because it "will"
result in Al-Qaeda taking over Iraq. Let's go ahead and debunk the argument, shall we?
At least we have conservatives admitting that the Iraq War is a horrible mistake. Now that we have won that debate the issue has shifted to whether withdraw is good or not. Tim Carr's article embodies that debate perfectly. The central argument that Carr makes is that staying in Iraq is bad but leaving it is worse because (1) Al-Qaeda will take over resulting in (2) terrible civilian casualties, (3) loss in American pride, (4) and a new war for the next generation to fight while (5) doing nothing to solve terrorism. Unfortunately Carr is wrong on every point he makes here.
First and foremost let me let everybody in on the dirty little secret of jihadists: they don't fight us because the hate us--they fight us because they want us out of their lands. Bin-Laden has said as much. I certainly do NOT think the are justified in killing us because they don't like our presence there but whenever somebody like Carr says that leaving Iraq while create more terrorists I want to slam my head against a wall. Whether Carr wants to admit it or not, Iraqis don't support the American occupation. The longer we stay, the more civilians we kill in the crossfire, the more fathers we arrest in Iraq and the more terror we instill on the Iraqis the more they will hate us and fight us. Leaving Iraq actually DIFFUSES the root cause of jihad.
I also find Carr's assertion that Al-Qaeda will take over Iraq to be 100% ridiculous. In fact if something could be 101% ridiculous this would be it. Al-Qaeda does not represent all Muslims but rather the fundamentalist minority of a specific sect called the Sunni. The majority of Iraq, on the other hand, is populated by the Shia. They are both Islamic religions but think of the difference like the difference between Catholic and Protestant. And instead of getting along like Catholics and Protestants do today they are at war with each other frequently like Christians were in medieval Europe.
So Al-Qaeda represents a minority viewpoint in a minority religion. In fact 94% of all Iraqis disapprove of Al Qaeda including 98% of the dominate Shia, 100% of Kurds, and even 77% of Sunni. I am having a VERY difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that Al Qaeda is somehow going to take over Iraq in the face of 94% opposition. I think Hitler has a higher approval rating than that in America. So that pretty much takes care of points (1) (2) (4) and (5) so far. What about point (3): loss of American pride?
Pride and reputation are absolutely NO reason to continue a war especially when our friends, sons and brothers are being fired upon. Second of all, we LOST OUR PRIDE when we invaded Iraq in the first place. We have none left. We screwed up and we've already lost face. Our allies are already deserting us. Countries like Iran and North Korea feel emboldened to build nuclear weapons because they know we are stuck in Iraq. What do we have left to lose now except our good friends and family serving overseas?
Common sense has spoken and so have the American people. Now I want to leave you all with a quote from Bobby Kennedy. "What we must ask ourselves is whether we have a right to bring so much destruction to another land without clear and convincing evidence that this is what its people want." The Iraqis have spoken. It's time to get out.
I agree 100% it's time to bring our soldiers home back to SAFETY on American soil. Thank you for addressing this article, I was quite disturbed while reading it.
Posted by Bill Muller on November 08, 2007 at 12:46 AM CST #
My main problem with the article is that it tries to oversimplify a very complex problem. The choice between "withdrawing" and "staying" isn't a difference of months, it's a difference of years.
Nation building in a diverse country surrounded by hostile neighbors and paranoid powers will take a period of years, not months. If we are committed to building a democratic Iraq, we need to be prepared to stay for 10-20 years. If we believe our invasion was already a failure, we need to get out now. The problem with the article is that it fails to give the reader a realistic expectation of what "staying" implies. We aren't talking about another additional tour of service folks, we're talking about an entire generation of American diplomats and servicemen giving their lives to reestablish a working government in a foreign country.
There are good reasons for wanting to establish a free Iraq, curbing terrorism is one of them, but more important is that it will provide 1) an ally for Saudia Arabia 2) stability for an unstable region and 3) to check an aggressive Iran. None of these things will get accomplished if we treat the Iraqi occupation as a question of months, as the columnist seems to do.
Posted by Xiao Xi Zhang on November 08, 2007 at 03:49 PM CST #