It pains me greatly (I’ve been OD’ing on John Adams DVD’s today) to give pause from my narrow commentary on the various and sundry musing’s on my life-to jump back into the fluid waters of political discussion. Ordinarily, I would have waited till the year was farther along, but when one reads cravenly incorrect diatribe, then like Mr. Adams, I must needs give comment. And context.
One of the things I truly despise about the idea that we somehow invaded Iraq for the purpose of “liberating” its 26 million Arab souls-is the exclusivity and selectiveness of that of liberation. The jury is still out as to whether Iraq has been truly liberated by the way of invasion, or whether America’s occupation has simply served as a way station for that God forsaken nation on its voyage from one failed government to another to yet another. Being supremely confident as I am in the Iraqi people, I quite confident in their ability to yet again hose up any good deal given unto them.
However for arguments sake, lets just suppose that the underpinnings of this “liberation theology” -the idea that a superpower that believes itself to be unique among the nations, and somehow above the mistakes of other, lesser powers- are sound. That these beliefs somehow provide it with a God given duty to invade nations willy nilly to “free” them.
That then begs the question then, namely, ‘Why doesn’t every oppressed nation deserve such consideration?”. Why then, given a moral duty to liberate oppressed people-are we at the same time, indifferent places and nations-and in certain cases, sometimes blatantly and sometimes obliquely, active participants in the oppression of other “less worthy” peoples through dictatorship?
Eh Jules? Maybe you could cut through your slobbering faith in George Bush as a misunderstood leader of history, and answer that one fundamental question. Except of course, you can’t.
Because you are an idiot sir-and so are those who believe that the invasion of Iraq was somehow the dawning of a Messianic turn from tyranny inside the Middle East. The leader of Iraq may have changed but the dysfunction of the region as whole will continue long after George W. Bush’s name will have been dissected ad nausem by historians. The reason? Because the fundamental causes of that dysfunction remain: Islam and and an economy dependent on outsiders for its basic labor.
We should be clear about one thing-the invasion of Iraq may have made things better for the Iraqis in some small or great degree, but the fact that a bad idea has consequences that are not 100% bad across the board-does not mean that it somehow was the right thing to do. Invading Iraq-from a narrow point of view of furthering the interests of the United States-was the wrong thing for the President of the United States to have sought out in 2002 and 2003.
Jules Crittenden, quoting an article from Mr. Niles Gardiner trots out the same tired shibboleths of the pro war cause:
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq’s parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region’s first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.
The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West’s most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.
The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush’s aggressive strategy actually worked.
That’s the fantasy. Lets look at the reality shall we?
George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 took what was essentially a localized infection and metastasized it into the world’s bloodstream. Pakistan and India are poised this evening to go to war with one another. England, France, and Spain have all suffered terrorist attacks on their soil. The United States, while unattacked militarily, took upon itself the adjunct cost of spending billions of borrowed dollars on wars of choice abroad, and as a result placed itself in deep economic trouble at home.
Iraq on the other hand, may be less violent than it was two years ago-but it is still violent by any normal definition of the word. At least 4.2 million Iraqis were displaced over 6 years. These included 2.2 million who were displaced within Iraq and some 2 million refugees, mostly in Syria (around 1.4 million) and Jordan (around half a million). 310 American Soldiers are dead this year alone-a 50% drop from last year-but still nothing to be celebrating. Iraqi deaths-in this year of “better security” are 40 times that number well over 10,000. (Source: I-Casualties.org).
And that is in a nation where things are “peaceful” and we are “winning”. A nation that we liberated. Meanwhile over in Africa, literally millions are suffering under a combination of disease, poverty, corruption, government dictatorships and other transgressions. Africa is the heart of what are called failed states. Look at the world map for 2008 and see where the bulk of failed nations lie:
Not one of those nations will benefit from a military intervention by the United States. Even when they might be easier to pacify than Iraq turned out to be. There is something fundamentally unfair about that proposition.
US troop strength in Africa probably only tops 2000. If liberating oppressed people is the reason for starting military conflicts or firing the first shot-then it would seem the US still has a long way to go. And will need a bigger military.
Now be clear-I am not advocating an increase in the number of US troops deployed to Africa. I’m simply stating that the US cannot take the moral high ground and reassure itself that liberating native populations from bad governments is somehow justification for getting thousands of its own citizens killed. People have to liberate themselves. With our assistance perhaps-but any military intervention has to stand on its own merits and be judged by only one criteria. Namely that such action is really one of last resort, all non-violent alternatives have been exhausted, and that once begun the odds of being able to achieve a termination of the conflict that furthers the national interests of the United States have been achieved.
George Bush was and is no legendary liberator of huddled masses. He is an elected politician who made a decision to invade a nation that had not attacked the United States, for one reason and one reason alone: because he could. He made a political calculation that the conditions created by 9-11 had given him a window of opportunity to settle a score with Iraq once and for all. In the process he would change the country’s government to one more favorable to the United States. He then backed up that decision by assuming ( incorrectly as it turned out) that he would be able to wrap the whole thing up quickly and that the native population of Iraq was not so screwed up that it would not be able to pick right up where Saddam left off. I personally believe that deep in his heart of hearts, Bush believed that 90% of US forces would be gone from Iraq in by the dawn of 2005. And that the victory in Iraq would be all the momentum he needed to propel him to a landslide victory in 2004. THAT was why Bush decided to invade Iraq when he did-not out of some high minded moral purpose. Any liberation that occurred was a by-product, not a central aim. Victory only has meaning for the US if it makes the political equation better for the United States.
Promoting national interest may be the right thing to do-however its not a endeavor wrapped in some sort of moral cloak-nor should it be. Its a dirty, scary business that when improperly resourced and pursued, gets Americans killed needlessly. That’s the legacy of George Bush in the Middle East-nothing else. I am confident, as the Arab world rises or falls, history will show the actions of the United States in Iraq and the decisions that George Bush made with regard to that nation – actually set back any advancement of peace in the region-not advanced it.
And for that. Bush deserves the scorn of history-not its adoration.
Jules Crittenden is wrong.