As a comment to a comment to a recent posting here, Allen McPheeters posed the following:
Chad:
You have my sympathies. Early in my first gig as a PCO, I attended the party's county convention to vote for delegates to the state convention. I was in favor of one candidate for the party's Presidential nomination; there was another strong candidate as well. By the time I left that day, I'd had a wonderful (if stinging) lesson in the importance of out-organizing your opponent. So we nominated G. W. Bush instead of John McCain.
All of which is to say that politics is a rough game, regardless of the team you play for, and you have to be prepared to have your people in place when the voting comes down.
But the real reason I'm posting is because of the comments just above mine. I disagree with you on whether it was right or not to invade Iraq, for reasons I'd be happy to explain if you were interested. But I'm willing to believe that men of good faith and honorable intent can disagree on public policy. What I want to know is, if you "just disagree with (Bush) that you clean up a mess with the same military force you used to create it in the first place," then what is your plan on how to clean up the mess in Iraq?
--
Posted by Allen McPheeters to The Left Shue at 6/08/2006 11:21:15 PM
*****
I am pleased to read Allen's comment and have chosen to open a new post for the purpose of responding and hopefully creating a reasoned and civil discussion on this issue and possibly more in the future.
To Allen, I would like to say that I have chosen to respond only to the questions you have put to me. I am aware that you have also commented on entries from Soulrebel and Jackie Minchew. I will leave their responses or lack thereof to them. I do welcome you to the Left Shue and offer the following:
*************
Allen,
Thanks for your comments. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the righteousness of pre-emptively invading a country that we had effectively bombed and "sanctioned" into a third world straw horse that posed this country no threat. I do agree with your premise that, "men of good faith and honorable intent can disagree on public policy." However, I believe that you would also have to believe that those setting the public policy are also men of good faith and honorable intent and it is at this starting point that we may have our greatest disagreement.
As for the question of who would clean up the mess in Iraq, I would say that, so far as the military response, cleanup and infrastructure are better left to maintenance battalions and not infantry companies. However, I also believe that the military maintainance role should only be viewed as short term and limited to immediate action such as ensuring hospitals and other humanitarian agencies are capable of functioning in the immediate aftermath of violence.
It is critical that more Iraqis take the lead roles in rebuilding in their own country. Rather than a series of no-bid contracts to Bush/Cheney Inc. political cronies, every effort should have been, and still should be, extended in identifying and empowering Iraqi firms to take on this task. Unemployment in Iraq is hovering around 80%. If you put a shovel in a man's hand and a paycheck at the end of the week, he may just put down that rifle or remote triggering device. Who knows the power grid and the water/sewage system better than the people who built them originally? The latest reports have electricity at below 50% of pre-invasion capacity and access to clean water is even worse. It is obvious to me that Halliburton is not doing the job and, based on the number of reports of price gouging (of American tax dollars) by many of the private firms in Iraq, it is simply criminal to allow this situation to remain the same. Isn’t it just a bit disturbing that the largest construction project in Iraq, rather than being a new power generating station, has been the building of the largest embassy in the world? Imagine being an Iraqi woman having to stand in line for a tanker truck to provide you your ration of clean drinking water for the week. Now ask how it is right that, rather than build more water filtration facilities, Kellog-Brown and Root has just completed work on the last of fourteen new permanent military bases (complete with the McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC intended to give the troops that feeling of "home").
The money being appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction should be awarded directly to the Iraqi government for distribution (via their Interior Ministry) to local contractors or to other international firms as deemed appropriate and cost effective by that entity. The United States should be willing to provide equipment and materials directly to the Iraqi government as part of any reconstruction package – bulldozers, not bullets.
As for the obvious question of security, I would suggest that we first have to agree that there are two differing forms of violence taking place in Iraq; the sectarian violence that is a result of the power vacuum left by the deposing of Saddam Hussein and the insurgency/resistance to the American occupation of that country. Both situations are real and must be dealt with before Iraq can be rebuilt and stable.
The solution to the resistance is for the United States to declare victory in regime change and announce our departure at the earliest practicable date that would allow for an orderly and safe deployment of our forces out of Iraq. The sectarian violence (some have referred to this as a civil war) is unfortunate and might have been mostly avoided if the Bush administration had truly planned for the transition of power after Saddam. However, if the new government is to be effective, they must show that they are truly open to political and economic power sharing. As a sovereign nation, they should be appealing to the UN for international peacekeepers to replace American troops and they should certainly appeal to their direct neighbors in the region to be the faces of that international force.
Finally, to those who say that we are responsible for fixing what we broke I would ask this; who would you have repair your broken watch, the one who broke it or a watch-smith who has the skill and the motivation to do the job correctly?
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
5 comments:
Well said, Chad. And welcome, Alan! It's nice to see that reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion.
I see the insurgency as a symptom of a disease, not as an opponent to do battle with. The true source of the strife, at least between the US forces and the insurgent forces, is that we went into that country with the intention of tearing it apart. Some call it "regime change", some called it a "crusade". Whatever term is used, it boils down to imperial expansion, either to control resources or to eliminate a potential threat. I never disagreed with Bush that Iraq could become a threat to the region and the world if left under Saddam. And my solution involved an army. But it would have been an army of teachers, of doctors, of engineers and construction workers.
"Now that we are there we have to fix what we broke."
I like Chad's question of who we would want to fix a broken watch. Bush said in the 2000 election that we are not skilled in Nation Building. We still fail in that. The only people who have the power and authority to build a country are the citizens of that country. So what's the first thing that we do when we take over? We eliminate any and all ability for the Iraqi people to control their own resources.
I think we should leave the country. At one point I thought we should slowly expand the Green Zone to create a zone of peace that would absorb the city of Bagdahd one block at a time, but that won't work now. There is a civil war, and it's a war that we are not involved in. We should collect every American in that country, military or civilian, and leave. Within a year, they would be at the UN ready to talk.
I hate this. Because people would die. Lots of people. But we would no longer be the ones killing, and we would no longer be the ones killed. And it would enable the people of this country to feel the shame that we deserve, and work within our own borders to fix the problems that we have.
But the most important thing to realize is that none of my ideas or Chad's ideas or your ideas will EVER BE CONSIDERED! Why? Because our country has been taken over by the forces of a Global Empire that only has one thing on their priority list, and that is to maintain their own power, or to take power away from someone else. It's not about doing what is right, it's about doing what maintains their control over the situation.
The road to peace is built through the use of peace. The road to a global community where we can take care of each other in a sustainable way is going to be built through building those communities regardless of who says or does what to try and distract us. The means BECOME the end. The Bush Administration launched the Iraq War because they WANTED war. And they still do. The American people WANT peace. And the only way to achieve that is through peace.
Thanks for listening.
Chad:
OK, so you posted this on Saturday, and now it's almost midnight on Wednesday and all you've gotten back is silence. My apologies. You've written some interesting things, and I feel compelled to respond in detail. Unfortunately, I've been moving (closer to you, actually -- from Redmond to Lynnwood). Now that we're actually in the new condo, I'm hoping to get some time to respond in the next couple of days.
Allen
Chad:
Let's start the dialogue here:
"I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the righteousness of pre-emptively invading a country that we had effectively bombed and "sanctioned" into a third world straw horse that posed this country no threat."
I covered the Reasons for the War on my blog at about the time of the invasion, so let me just make a few brief points.
1.) I assert that the 1991 Gulf War was fully justified, despite the fact that Iraq did not attack the USA. If you disagree with this assertion, then we're going to have a trickier time going forward.
2.) In November 2002, the UN Security Council passed a resolution declaring that Iraq was in material breach of the terms of the ceasefire that ended the 1991 war. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but when someone breaks the terms of a ceasefire, you go back to fighting. In this sense, Saddam Hussein got a lot of breaks -- he'd been violating the ceasefire for nearly 12 years.
3.) It was widely believed, both by our government and by our allies, that Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to re-arm. Subsequent events, of course, have shown that he hadn't been able to reconstitute his WMD programs, but no one believed that he wasn't trying.
4.) The sanctions regime, although it had been effective in the 90s, was weakening due to the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program and the willingness of countries like France and Russia to look the other way. See Kenneth Pollack's book "The Threatening Storm" for details.
Saddam Hussein was a wannabe Hitler: he claimed to be descended from the prophet Mohammed and divinely selected to unite the Arab world. He was willing to use weapons of mass destruction on his own people to keep the reins of power in Iraq. He went to war against both Iran and Kuwait. It is reasonable to assume that as long as he was in power, he was a threat to his neighbors. And most of those neighbors depend (for good or ill) on the US to protect them in such a circumstance. Given the high likelihood of further mischief, it makes more sense to change that regime at a time when it is relatively weak, then by allowing it to become strong again. Surely we've learned the lesson of Chamberlain and Hitler.
Now, let's consider briefly the good that this war has done. Yes, many Iraqis and some American (and allied) soldiers have lost their lives in the conflict, and I do not take this lightly. However, from a progressive point of view, Iraq is a much better place now than it was in 2002.
1.) Human Rights: The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein used torture, rape, and mass executions as regular political tool. When Coalition forces engage in torture, it is an aberration that is investigated and punishment is meted out as appropriate.
2.) Political Rights: According to the Wikipedia, "Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government." But there have been multiple elections held in Iraq since the invasion.
3.) Women's Issues: Women particularly suffered under Saddam: women who were accused of being prostitutes were beheaded publicly. This practice has ceased since Saddam was overthrown.
4.) Environment: Saddam drained the Tigris-Euphrates alluvial salt marsh in southern Iraq as retribution for a failed Shia uprising. The Coalition Provisional Authority and subsequent Iraqi government have made efforts to restor the marshes.
5.) Workers' Rights: Several trade unions have sprung up in the aftermath of the invasion, including the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (which has exclusive rights to unionize public sector workers), the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq, and the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq.
This is a longish answer, and was unfortunately a long time coming. I hope you can see why I think the invasion was necessary, even if we don't agree.
And a note to Chad Lupkes: You said:
"The road to peace is built through the use of peace."
I disagree, and I think the verdict of history is on my side. Compare the experiences of Neville Chamberlain -- "Peace in our time!" with those of Ronald Reagan -- "Peace Through Strength."
Like socialism, pacifism is a nice ideal that fails in the face of human nature.
Allen,
Apologies for the overdue response. I have heard all of the arguments that you put forward on the reasons for invading Iraq and would simply say this: Remove number 3 and we never enter that country.
I have mixed feelings about the 1991 Gulf War but in the end believe that it was mostly justified (I think if GHW Bush was doing his job he might have prevented Saddam from ever moving into Kuwiat). You must, however, keep the invasion of Iraq in proper context. While all the claims of UN violations may or may not be true (considering that there are no WMD or WMD programs in Iraq, how could Saddam be in violation of a resolution calling for hom to disarm?) this country was in direct pursuit of the terrorists who attacked our country. None of these terrorists came from Iraq. We were already chasing Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan into Pakistan (a country that actually does have nuclear weapons by the way). The American people saw no reason to change course and invade Iraq. UNTIL......
Bush and Cheney start declaring Saddam's WMD as a gathering threat to our country. It took almost a year of daily briefings on FOX News to convince the American people that, in the words of Dick Cheney, "There is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program." Even so, America's public polling about invading Iraq was below 50% in early March of 2003. It wasn't until the "boots hit the ground" on March 19, 2003 that the poll numbers went over the 50% approval mark.
As for the effect of the sanctions on Iraq, you may want to watch this clip of Colin Powell at a press conference in Egypt in February of 2001, http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
I would like to get excited about the "benefits" of the invasion but I have a different take on things. You see, to me, if your basic needs like clean water and electricity and access to medicine and doctors aren't met, the rest of the stuff doesn't matter quite so much.
Finally, I see nothing that would indicate any strategy aimed at our departure from Iraq. Do you have a plan for victory or will we simply just know it when we see it? That seems to be the plan of the current administration.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment