2006-05-27

The Iraq Issue

Blair and Bush are finally conceding that they made some mistakes in Iraq. The de-Baathification of the government led to a large number of angry people with guns while reducing the effectiveness of any army the US and UK help them put together (as every extensively trained Iraqi is disenchanted with us due to the de-Baathification). They admit that removing Hussein from power was not what was needed to spark a democratic Iraq and that they needed a plan before having gone into the country. Politically-wise, this concession helps them stop the bleeding by appealing to the sympathy of the voters. However, now that they have admitted to the mistakes, they need to start doing something to fix Iraq.

First of all, we need to admit this is not going to be a short term situation. We are stuck there. If we leave now (or soon), all we do is show the Middle East that we do not much care for them and that we entered Iraq for all the reasons they think we entered for: oil, imperialism, war against Islam, etc. As such, I agree we need to train Iraqi forces, but that does not mean our troops are leaving very soon (I see at least 3-4 years more there). But the sudden rush to increase Iraqi forces has been incredibly bad: widespread corruption, uniformed death squads, etc. are consequences that come to mind. We need to take our time - even artificially sown democracy does not rise overnight.

Second, we need to focus more on the humanitarian aspect of our invasion of Iraq. We killed a few tens of thousands of Iraqis and displaced probably even more. It is unsurprising that we do not have a positive image in their eyes. As such, we need to bring in NGOs to aid in rebuilding people's lives. This would mean a huge relief fund built especially for NGOs within the Coalition of the Willing who are willing to go into Iraq and help people settle down again. That could be anything from physically helping them rebuild their houses, help them setup educational facilities from elementary school to secondary institutions, help them establish local governance, etc. The list goes on and on. It will cost a lot and there will be a lot of failed attempts, but, I think, this is the most important part of any long-term improvement of Iraq.

Finally, if our efforts in Iraq are to succeed, we have to alter perceptions of America and American actions in the Middle East (as explained by ex-Secretary Albright). A large part of why al Qaeda succeeds in recruiting new terrorists is that Muslim youth feel that America is an evil entity desirous of the end of Islam. Of course that is untrue, but al Qaeda is able to spin everything that the US does into a large-scale assault on Islam. We need to correct that perception. To do so will involve not just a PR campaign but also a campaign of positive action involving massive efforts to improve relations between Muslims (within and outside the US) and the rest of the population. Bringing NGOs into Iraq could be considered a part of this effort, but it should be the best fleshed out part, because I truly believe it is the most important one.

I imagine there are tons of other aspects to Iraq that I have not thought about yet. However, in my eyes, the aforementioned three would go a long way to improving what is, at this point, an utter and absolute mess.

(I realize this is a rather liberal point of view on the whole Iraq issue. Although I imagine most people reading this will be rather liberal, if anyone can think of any other improvements for Iraq, I would be interested to know them (liberal or conservative).)

7 comments:

  1. I know I have mentioned before that I do not understand a lot about politics. And so I sometimes depend on the opinions of the people in our government that I like/trust.
    Ted Kennedy said on the Tim Russert show that 'if we haven't fixed it by now, we can't fix it and it is time for us to get out and bring our troops home.

    I would love nothing more, but unfortunetly I don't see how we can go there ( even though we did get rid of the beast that was in power),make what was a mess an even bigger mess and just walk away from it. So unfortunetly you may be right. We may have to stay long enough to help fix things.
    The truth is I wish we hadn't gone there in the first place and I think Bushes reasons for going were purely personal.

    I think the worse thing that could have happened to them, us and the whole rest of the world is Bush ( and his buddies in power).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liberal or otherwise, I think each one of us has an opinion on what's happening in Iraq. You're right when you say we need to make amends and help the common man in iraq to rebuild his life; one we inadvertently(?) destroyed when secretly panning for oil in an Iraq publicized for its(nonexistent) WMDs! Sending in neutral NGO's sounds like a very viable solution, and one that hasn't been explored so far.
    A toughtful write.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would be FAR more satisfied if I saw more humanitarian work being done in Iraq. A true uplifting of the people, instead of oppression.

    I said when the US invaded Iraq, that the truth would come to light. Sure enough, no weapons of mass destruction are found. Sure enough, we are now getting apologies from Bush & Blair. Unless the average Iraqi citizen feels cared for in some way, I don't think things will quickly improve. So far, I think the general population of Iraq is worse off than before. Who can work or visit the market these days without fear of being blown away by a suicide bomber or getting caught in crossfire?? I'm sad to say this, perhaps I sound un-American, but I must be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. probably the problem with politics is that too many people are politicians.
    maybe if we decided to be humans things would be better...
    also solve the problem put more women in power...;), strong women not the ones that men appoint to hide behind but women capable of making real decisons and avoiding conflicts:D

    ReplyDelete
  5. a view on IRAQ , the weapon of mass destruction is the opression and brainwashing...
    this weapon spans the globe unfortunately.

    still really trying to figure out IRAQ, since bin laddie happened to be Saudi...and so the coffers just kept on getting filled to the brim, and man forgot his duty as ambition became his only whim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After talking to some people, I must admit that one thing I said must be altered. While the funds for the NGOs must come from within the Coalition of the Willing, the NGOs themselves must not be limited to ones established within the said "coalition". When I wrote, I thought that would show the desire of the Americans and British to make amends for their misdeeds. But in fact, as every action is almost always spun on account of its worst result, the slightest attempt to benefit through dishonesty on the part of an NGO working in Iraq will be seen as part of the grander American/British plan to benefit from Iraq's rebuilding. Therefore, all NGOs must necessarily be allowed to apply for funding from the fund mentioned in the entry.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that at this point lots of people [including me] are still pretty hung up on the whole wrongness of the war itself [why we got into it, "WMDs," who is profiting, etc], but I agree that at this point, it's too late to complain about that stuff. The fact is that this war, justified or not, has happened, and now that we are involved we can't just pack up and leave. So though I'm normally a huge Kennedy fan, I have to disagree with him on that one.
    I think the NGO idea is theoretically a good one, but I am not sure how many other countries would want to get involved in "fixing something that is America's fault," especially since it requires resources/manpower and time that they may not feel they have, and because it puts their citizens at risk. I do think it would be great if this could happen, but it's a tough sell. I definitely think it'd be better than what the US is spending resources on now [like the absurdly huge US embassy "complex" that is being put up].
    I think the problem at this point is that Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq during his presidency [and has even said so], so he feels a bit relaxed about the whole thing and is not getting his hands very dirty with the nitty dritty rebuilding. That's being left to the poor sap that is his successor.

    ReplyDelete