As the war in Iraq plugs along, the old debate about the rational behind the war rages on with it. September 11, 2001 it seems, has dissolved into the stuff of mere memory for some. Iraq, we are told, is an insolvable disaster, a foreign policy blunder, pari pasu with Vietnam itself, forged by the delinquent "neo-conservative" chicken hawks in Washington, hell-bent on sucking out the last drops of oil from the sands of the Middle East. The war in Iraq has seen the formation of unlikely allies: Ron Paul and the bubble Catholic clique on the far right and the inscrutable far left cabal led by the screeching femme fatals of Code Pink. Both sing in unison and tell us that the US should simply "Get out now!" This view, at once both naive and dangerously irresponsible, is thankfully, not taken seriously by the military commanders on the ground in Iraq, or elsewhere for that matter. Most war critics offer shallow lip-service to the military via specious, yet semi-attractive assertions claiming that the war in Iraq has diverted valuable resources from the soi-disant "real war" in Afghanistan. Iraq has, in effect, hamstrung the true battle unfolding in the Hindu Kush. Far from making America safer, we are told, the war in Iraq has fundamentally undermined American security. This view, of course, conveniently ignores the conspicuous fact that the homeland has been undefiled from Islamic terror for seven years and that numerous plots have been foiled. Stubbornly ignoring repeated statements from top-tier al-Qaida personnel who insist that the front lines of the war are indeed in Iraq, the Ron Pauls and Jane Fondas of the world warble the same old tune. "Get out now!" It's getting a bit onerous having to bear these folks, isn't it?
What are we to take from the Iraq war? As a qualifier: I had a friend in Rome who initially disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq and who, nonetheless, held fast to a belief in realism and in taking seriously the assessments of individuals like Gen. Petraeus. We had respectful debates about the initial decision and, while we disagreed strongly, I respected his view and continue to do so. Incidentally, this friend was an ardent defender of America and the Iraq war in the face of typical Euro-bluster emanating from a particularly irritating Roman professor. Further, I've been fortunate to discuss the matter with several good friends in the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the National Guard and their thoughts on the matter have contributed mightily to my own. There may not be universal consensus on each particular however all agree on the need to face reality. Looking back and wondering "What might have been?" is time wasted. Adults look forward and deal with the facts as they are. The issue is not whether or not war should have been waged. The issue is: What to do now? Realism is an essential precondition in any serious discussion. Pulling out, reasonable minds agree, would result in an unmitigated disaster on all fronts: It would be an insult to the enormous sacrifices made by the military and it would be a shameless disregard for the thousands of Iraqis who would suffer the immediate consequences of the genocidal pandemonium that would inevitably follow. Indeed, to "pull out now!", à la Clinton, Obama or Paul, is a view that is not only wildly irresponsible but deeply selfish. Foreign policy experts have said as much and I've liberally posted links to their articles and essays on this blog. We need to move beyond the Ron Paul approach to foreign policy. The fanatical minority on the right and left clinging to it (if I may use that in-vogue term) are living in a pre-9/11 world and it is dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment