Should we stay or should we go now?
Nov. 17th, 2006 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serenissimaI don't like to post about politics, because I hardly follow politics and don't read the news much, and who wants to read the pronouncements of an ignoramus? Especially when some of you with whom I keep up are much better informed than me. But I do have a few thoughts strung together regarding the occupation, and I feel like setting them down. So if you're going to read the following, consider all of it to be hedged by a big "I think" or "from what I can tell" or "it's my understanding" or "it appears to me" -- that way I don't have to put those in every sentence.
Invading Iraq was a bad idea. I don't know why Mr. Bush the younger was preoccupied with the concept of conquering Iraq, but that must have been the reason why we invaded. He must have some personal hang-up about it, something that existed before the kerfluffle about WMDs. The diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq had a deleterious effect on our efforts to keep Afghanistan safe, stable, and friendly to us. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA would all be better off right at this moment if we had restricted our regime-changing endeavours to Afghanistan. I hope that ten years from now, I won't be inclined to make the same statement because our actions will have turned out to be beneficial.
What we did in Afghanistan and in Iraq was similar. We destroyed the existing governmental structure, then tried to start construction on a new, more appealing one within the scaffolding of occupation: "provisional government" or whatnot. As always, creation is more difficult and more time-consuming than destruction. I do not object to what we, in general, did in Afghanistan. There were regrettable incidents in which US forces did horrible things to innocent people (including our own soldiers), but as a whole, we have uprooted a hateful and oppressive regime. My objection with Afghanistan is that we haven't done enough. We haven't provided enough security. We haven't provided enough support. We haven't cultivated enough unifying national identity. I'll bet there are more poppies growing over there now than there were six years ago.
What we did was similar, but the situations preceding the invasions were different. Iraq is more industrialized than Afghanistan. More people are highly educated. There was more existing infrastructure. There were more governmental services provided. It was ruled by a brutal, murderous, terrible dictator ("terrible" in the sense of inspiring terror), but there was order. And electricity, and gasoline, and the ability of women to walk around outside unescorted by men.
We are failing to provide and maintain order. We removed the existing structures, but from the beginning, we did not make our scaffolding sturdy. We exacerbated differences which previously were not a big problem -- I get that part from Riverbend's blog, which I've glanced at a couple times. We allowed vermin from outside to enter and make trouble. Our own stupid/insane/uncontrolled soldiers made trouble for us by committing crimes. And while these problems, or at least some of them, are acknowledged, still we refrain from devoting enough money and manpower to fix things. (Or maybe the money is simply being drained by corruption?)
I don't like the idea of leaving because I feel we have an obligation to stay and set things right. When you break something of someone else's, you fix it or provide an equivalent-or-better replacement. Iraq is in its current situation as a result of our meddling, so it's our responsibility to restore it to better than its former condition. My fear is that this is impossible for us. Are we making things worse by our continued presence? As soon as we leave, Baghdad will implode and Iraq will dissolve into chaos. The frightened majority over there despise the violence, but they can't make their neighbors stop killing people by wishing it, nor by shooting back. The fire's been set and stoked, if left to itself it will take years to burn itself out. Is the best we can hope for to just get out of the mess and leave them to their fate?
Invading Iraq was a bad idea. I don't know why Mr. Bush the younger was preoccupied with the concept of conquering Iraq, but that must have been the reason why we invaded. He must have some personal hang-up about it, something that existed before the kerfluffle about WMDs. The diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq had a deleterious effect on our efforts to keep Afghanistan safe, stable, and friendly to us. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA would all be better off right at this moment if we had restricted our regime-changing endeavours to Afghanistan. I hope that ten years from now, I won't be inclined to make the same statement because our actions will have turned out to be beneficial.
What we did in Afghanistan and in Iraq was similar. We destroyed the existing governmental structure, then tried to start construction on a new, more appealing one within the scaffolding of occupation: "provisional government" or whatnot. As always, creation is more difficult and more time-consuming than destruction. I do not object to what we, in general, did in Afghanistan. There were regrettable incidents in which US forces did horrible things to innocent people (including our own soldiers), but as a whole, we have uprooted a hateful and oppressive regime. My objection with Afghanistan is that we haven't done enough. We haven't provided enough security. We haven't provided enough support. We haven't cultivated enough unifying national identity. I'll bet there are more poppies growing over there now than there were six years ago.
What we did was similar, but the situations preceding the invasions were different. Iraq is more industrialized than Afghanistan. More people are highly educated. There was more existing infrastructure. There were more governmental services provided. It was ruled by a brutal, murderous, terrible dictator ("terrible" in the sense of inspiring terror), but there was order. And electricity, and gasoline, and the ability of women to walk around outside unescorted by men.
We are failing to provide and maintain order. We removed the existing structures, but from the beginning, we did not make our scaffolding sturdy. We exacerbated differences which previously were not a big problem -- I get that part from Riverbend's blog, which I've glanced at a couple times. We allowed vermin from outside to enter and make trouble. Our own stupid/insane/uncontrolled soldiers made trouble for us by committing crimes. And while these problems, or at least some of them, are acknowledged, still we refrain from devoting enough money and manpower to fix things. (Or maybe the money is simply being drained by corruption?)
I don't like the idea of leaving because I feel we have an obligation to stay and set things right. When you break something of someone else's, you fix it or provide an equivalent-or-better replacement. Iraq is in its current situation as a result of our meddling, so it's our responsibility to restore it to better than its former condition. My fear is that this is impossible for us. Are we making things worse by our continued presence? As soon as we leave, Baghdad will implode and Iraq will dissolve into chaos. The frightened majority over there despise the violence, but they can't make their neighbors stop killing people by wishing it, nor by shooting back. The fire's been set and stoked, if left to itself it will take years to burn itself out. Is the best we can hope for to just get out of the mess and leave them to their fate?
