Do Not Abandon Iraq
The opinions that pundits and politicians alike are voicing about Iraq these days concern me.
Iraq has little history with democracy. For the most of the last two generations it was governed by a criminal gang that deliberately played upon the fears and loyalties of the Iraqi people to stay in power.
Fourteen million or so Iraqis voted to form the present government. They have voted on provincial and local governments as well. They appear to be convinced that a popularly elected government will work in their country.
The country is largely peaceful, with the violence centered around Baghdad and its surrounding provinces. The terrorists engaged in the violence have demonstrated the ability to create large numbers of dead and horrific images for the media to capture.
To deal with this violence, and to generally maintain law and order, over 300,000 Iraqis have volunteered to join the military or the police. Thousands of them have given their lives for their country, having become a focal point for terrorist murderers.
The United States and its Coalition allies have been engaged in training these brave men and women. In addition, we have assisted the Iraqi people themselves by renovating and building schools, hospitals, electrical systems and water and sewer projects.
Iraq has been a democracy for just over three years. In that time, the Iraqi people have achieved all of the successes mentioned and are working to create more. It has not been easy, but progress has been made.
Some Americans believe we should leave Iraq as soon as possible. They cite the on-going violence as proof that Iraq cannot become democratic and peaceful as long as we are there. Their view of history is narrow and centered on what seems to be a desperate need to justify their lack of moral courage.
Democracy is something that grows over time. A long time. America was free of British rule three years after the peace treaty was signed, but was far less democratic than we are today. In those early years, we, too, had revolt and rebellion, and a mere 85 years after our Declaration of Independence we fought a massive civil war.
France became a democracy not long after we did. In the many years that followed, they established two empires and five republics. Their struggle to stay a democracy and to become more democratic has been long and difficult.
India, the pearl of th British Empire, fought for its independence and democracy. Since 1949, they too have suffered terrorism and revolt, and until recently this nation was known most for its grinding poverty. It has taken them three or four generations to grow into what we see today.
Abandoning the Iraqi people would be cowardly and short sighted. Their democracy will not resemble ours for generations, and violence will not vanish in that country overnight.
Other pundits have called for more manpower to be sent to Iraq. President Bush has always said that personnel requirements and numbers were up to the generals in the region. That is the correct view.
One of the things that seems to have shocked pundits about our military is how few combat troops we have. The reality is that there are seven to ten support troops for every combat soldier. These are the men and women that have been asked to patrol and convoy. They are soldiers but their expertise is in other areas than the infantry.
An even smaller number of troops, combat and support, have training skills and experience.
The notion that we can put more troops in Iraq ignores the realities of our force structure. We don’t have any unused combat troops, and we don’t have any unused trainers.
Our current posture is to patrol where the Iraqis need our help, and to train their military and police to take our place. Training takes time. We are building a police force and a military for a democracy, which is very different than just building a police force and a military.
Ralph Peters argues in the New York Post that we have one of two choices in Iraq, to enforce peace or promote democracy.
Meanwhile, those of us who care about our country’s security and who worry about the futility haunting the Middle East need to face a tougher issue than yo-mama name-calling: Iraq has deteriorated so badly it’s hard to imagine a positive outcome unless we’re willing to take radical, politically difficult measures.
The administration and Congress have to face a fundamental question: Which result is more important – preserving Iraq as a unified state with a facade of democratic government, or protecting our own national-security interests?
Stanly Kurtz at The Corner echoes Peters.
Politically, we may need to pretend that Iraq’s democracy is still functioning. Today’s NR editorial on Iraq strikes the right note on all the military questions, then says what has to be said about Iraq’s government. But the fact that we’ve got to go after Sadr militarily reveals that democracy as we’ve conceived it up to now has been flawed. By failing to disarm independent militias prior to elections, we’ve allowed elected governments to be taken over by independent and undemocratic forces. This has also made it impossible to even begin the long-term process of cultural change that is the real key to successful democracy. Both Peters and NR’s editorial are saying “security first.” Democracy cannot be used, as we have tried to use it, as a tool to bring about the political bargains necessary to security. Democracy can only flourish in an atmosphere where security has already been assured.
I disagree. Security and democracy are not mutually exclusive goals. If democracy flows from security, then why is the Louisiana National Guard still patrolling New Orleans? Why have hundreds of people been shot this year in Rochester New York, and tens of thousands in our cities nationwide?
It takes only one terrorist to produce violence. It takes a nation full of citizens to produce democracy. Violence can happen in an instant. Democracy takes decades. I would posit that there has never been a secure nation that was free of violence. All the citizens of such a nation did was trade the possibility of random violence for the certainty of state sponsored violence.
Three years after their Liberation, Iraqis have voted nationally three times. Each time even greater numbers of citizens turned out. The same was not true at this point in Germany or Japan. The Iraqi people have shown that they want democracy and that they are willing to do what is necessary to grow that concept in their country. What they need from us is patience.
America is the richest, most free nation on the planet. We are there after two hundred thirty years of work. In that time there were rebellions, invasions, our capital was conquered and burned, we fought a horrific civil war, and much later than we should have, women and minorities were given the rights they deserved under our system of governance.
We have been at this for 230 years. Does it not make sense to give the Iraqis more time? Have they not earned our respect for their struggle to democracy and our support in that struggle?
