|
We hear constantly that
we must continue the fight in Iraq, and possibly in Iran and
Syria, because, “It’s better to fight the terrorists over
there than here.” Merely repeating this justification, if it
is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All
evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and
other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting
efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists.
This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious
and secular Muslim factions; namely, that the U.S. should
leave all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists
from attacking us, it will do the opposite.
The fighting and
terrorist attacks are happening overseas because of a
publicly stated al Qaeda policy that they will go for soft
targets – our allies whose citizens object to the war like
Spain and Italy. They will attack Americans who are more
exposed in Iraq. It is a serious error to conclude that
“fighting them over there” keeps them from fighting us “over
here,” or that we’re winning the war against terrorism. As
long as our occupation continues, and American forces
continue killing Muslims, the incentive to attack us will
grow. It shouldn’t be hard to understand that the
responsibility for violence in Iraq – even violence between
Iraqis – is blamed on our occupation. It is more accurate to
say, “the longer we fight them over there the longer we will
be threatened over here.”
The final rhetorical
refuge for those who defend the war, not yet refuted, is the
dismissive statement that “the world is better off without
Saddam Hussein.” It implies no one can question anything we
have done because of this fact. Instead of an automatic
concession it should be legitimate, though politically
incorrect, to challenge this disarming assumption. No one
has to like or defend Saddam Hussein to point out we won’t
know whether the world is better off until someone has taken
Saddam Hussein’s place.
This argument was never
used to justify removing murderous dictators with much more
notoriety than Saddam Hussein, such as our ally Stalin; Pol
Pot, whom we helped get into power; or Mao Tse Tung.
Certainly the Soviets, with their bloody history and
thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, were many times
over a greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein ever was. If
containment worked with the Soviets and the Chinese, why is
it assumed without question that deposing Saddam Hussein is
obviously and without question a better approach for us than
containment?
The “we’re all better off
without Saddam Hussein” cliché doesn’t address the
question of whether the 2,100 troops killed or the 20,000
wounded and sick troops are better off. We refuse to
acknowledge the hatred generated by the deaths of tens of
thousands of Iraqi citizens who are written off as
collateral damage. Are the Middle East and Israel better off
with the turmoil our occupation has generated? Hardly!
Honesty would have us conclude that conditions in the Middle
East are worse since the war started: the killing never
stops, and the cost is more than we can bear – both in lives
and limbs lost and dollars spent.
In spite of the potential
problems that may or may not come with our withdrawal, the
greater mistake was going in the first place. We need to
think more about how to avoid these military encounters,
rather than dwelling on the complications that result when
we meddle in the affairs of others with no moral or legal
authority to do so. We need less blame game and more
reflection about the root cause of our aggressive foreign
policy.
By limiting the debate to
technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of
troops, and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our
continued policy of sanctions, threats, and intimidation of
Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends
to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from
both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the
war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries.
The likelihood of
agreeing about who deliberately or innocently misled
Congress, the media, and the American people is virtually
nil. Maybe historians at a later date will sort out the
whole mess. The debate over tactics and diplomacy will go
on, but that only serves to distract from the important
issue of policy. Few today in Congress are interested in
changing from our current accepted policy of intervention to
one of strategic independence: No nation building, no
policing the world, no dangerous alliances.
But the results of our
latest military incursion into a foreign country should not
be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay
close attention to the results so far.
Since March 2003 we have
seen:
|
• Death and
destruction;
• 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or
wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the
crossfire;
• A Shiite theocracy has been planted;
• A civil war has erupted;
• Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;
• Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has
been removed;
• Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a
fertile training field not previously available to them;
• Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has
significantly increased;
• Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq
without competitive bids;
• True national defense and the voluntary army have been
undermined;
• Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on
free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the
Patriot Act, National Security letters, and
challenges to habeas corpus all have been
promoted;
• Values have changed, with more Americans supporting
torture and secret prisons;
• Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments
over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;
• Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as
legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;
• The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies
are less secure, not more;
• Historic relics of civilization protected for
thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil
wells were secured;
• U.S. credibility in the world has been severely
damaged; and
• The national debt has increased enormously, and our
dependence on China has increased significantly as our
federal government borrows more and more money. |
How many more years will it take for civilized people to
realize that war has no economic or political value for the
people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by
governments, and individual soldiers on each side are
conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to
shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both
sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to
overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False
patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into
succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special
interests who agitate for war.
War reflects the weakness
of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an
alternative.
This does not mean we
should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we
need more rather than less interaction with our world
neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce,
friendship, and exchange of ideas – this would far surpass
our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed
force. And this can be achieved without increasing the power
of the state or accepting the notion that some world
government is needed to enforce the rules of exchange.
Governments should just get out of the way and let
individuals make their own decisions about how they want to
relate to the world.
Defending the country
against aggression is a very limited and proper function of
government. Our military involvement in the world over the
past 60 years has not met this test, and we’re paying the
price for it.
A policy that endorses
peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over
arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of
the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves
consideration.
|
