U.S. still lacks plan in Iraq amidst increasing violence
From Where I Sit...
Bradley Hart |
IF YOU’VE BEEN following the news out of Iraq for the past week or so you’re already aware that the situation there has taken a potentially ominous turn.
According to The Washington Post, more than 1,300 Iraqis have been killed around the country in the past week alone.
The latest round of bombings, assassinations and murders was largely unleashed by the bombing and partial destruction of one of the holiest shrines in Shiite Islam last week.
In retaliation, militias have launched reprisal attacks on Sunni groups they believe are responsible for the bombing.
An account in yesterday’s Post described the scene at the Baghdad morgue: hundreds of unclaimed bodies suffering gunshot or stab wounds -— or still partially covered by the plastic bags used to suffocate the victim.
Yesterday, a car bomb in one of Baghdad’s Shiite areas killed more than 20 people and the bodies of nine Iraqis, including a Sunni Arab tribal leader were found riddled with bullets south of Baquba. A roadside bomb killed two British soldiers on patrol while one American soldier was killed by small-arms fire. A total of 54 American soldiers were killed in the country in February, according to Defense Department reports.
The situation in Iraq has clearly taken a turn for the worse. The possibility of full-sale civil war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds now appears to be somewhat probable given the level of violence and ill-will now being created between the factions.
Yesterday President Bush denounced the violence and remarked that Iraqis must choose “chaos or unity.”
Like much of what the President tells the public about Iraq, this is a massive oversimplification. Iraqis are not faced with a choice between anarchy and nationalism. I highly doubt most Iraqis even think in these terms.
The enmity between the Shiites and Sunnis is not a recent phenomenon. The groups have hated each other for literally a thousand years or more – and that’s not even considering the status of the Kurds, many of whom insist on having their own nation in the north, despite the objections and threats from Turkey.
The ethnic divisions and strife in Iraq will not be solved in our lifetimes. Neither will the violence between the groups be stopped except by a brutal dictator, like Saddam Hussein.
I’m no fan of the “butcher of Baghdad,” but Saddam was brutal in part because of how Iraq is – not entirely because he is an intrinsically evil person. Iraq’s current violence will likely only be ultimately stopped because of a similar ruler’s reign of terror.
The United States must not find itself caught in the middle of a civil war in a far off land, as we ultimately did in Vietnam.
I’ve always had trouble calling for a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq if only on a purely humanitarian basis. The departure of U.S. troops would result in greater violence between Iraqis – and there is a certain amount of logic to the argument that we “broke” Iraq and now we “own” it.
But at the same time it’s not the responsibility of this country to put its blood and treasure on the line to fight a war against the populace (not the army) of a foreign nation without any kind of objectives or victory conditions more concrete than “winning the war.” Fighting against a foreign army and fighting to keep a crowd of Sunnis from torching a Shiite mosque for revenge are two completely different things.
There are no good or simple answers in Iraq. America needs to think very carefully about what it values at home and abroad and decide whether it’s appropriate to continue to sacrifice our soldiers and money in the deserts of the Middle East.
Making the wrong decision either way will have consequences that will be far reaching and could shape the world’s politics for decades to come.
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
