Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad
sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating,
and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn
that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the
future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.
These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization.
They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in
Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We
are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy
in Iraq.
This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something
candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening
situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional
declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires
over and over again.
|
“We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds
of years of Iraqi history.” |
|
The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of
people who have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and
politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs.
Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates
the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist
unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group
to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate
with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more
than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely
until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No
attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of
American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country.
No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars
to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist
approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket
acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican
policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers,
an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support
political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the
integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our
nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that
“times have changed since the Constitution was written” – in fact, that’s
an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional
welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from
the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas
corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government
enshrined in the Constitution – limited government in both domestic
and foreign affairs – has not changed over time. What has changed is
our willingness to ignore that principle.
CURRENT
ISSUE
|
