JAMES O. GOLDBOROUGH THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Sinking ever-deeper into Iraq sand
James O. Goldsborough
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
August 4, 2003
Ihave, in recent months, compared the Bush
administration's war in Iraq to the Spanish-American
and Vietnam wars and heard it compared to the
Mexican and Persian Gulf wars.
But as the quagmire deepens, it becomes clear Iraq is
unlike anything this nation has undertaken (though
there are foreign parallels). The situation's uniqueness explains
why public concerns are rising as President Bush's approval
rating declines. Bush's war has produced the hostile, hegemonic
occupation of a sullen nation bent on killing Americans until we
have departed.
It is the job of soldiers to kill or be killed, some would say, and if
the cause is right, it is a price any brave nation is willing to pay.
But what was the cause of Bush's war? If it was Iraq's weaponry
(the term weapons of mass destruction is meaningless), where
are they? If it was to satisfy Iraqis' hunger for democracy, why
are they killing us?
It is these paradoxes that make this war unlike anything before,
and why it is so extremely risky. They are paradoxes born of
Bush's doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, and the deepening
quagmire should be reason to jettison that flawed doctrine for
good. Pre-emptive war is war a la carte, and no victim will take it
kindly.
Looking back over history, Bush's war in a way resembles the
Spanish-American war – als o fought over trumped-up charges
magnified in the press to create war fever and leading to a long
U.S. foreign occupation.
The difference is that, in principle at least, we were liberating
Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines from a decadent Spanish
monarchy. Filipinos would show no more love for the new rulers
than for the old, and 20,000 Filipino fighters and 4,000 U.S.
soldiers would die before the islands were subdued.
With Vietnam, the main difference is that Americans were, some
thought, defending a nation seeking help in repelling foreign
aggression. Our mistake was that South Vietnam was not a
nation, but a part of a nation fighting a civil war, and however
good our intentions, we should have stayed out.
The Mexican war has little in common with Iraq. It was a border
war over Texas. Rep. Abraham Lincoln and much of Congress
opposed the war over fears Texas would enter the Union as a
slave state, which it did. The war, called "Mr. Polk's war,"
resembles "Mr. Bush's war" only in that Polk wanted war as
badly as Bush.
Bush's war bears little resemblance to the 1991 Gulf War, which
was waged by a broad coalition of nations operating under U.N.
mandate to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A central
difference is that the coalition stopped after driving Iraq from
Kuwait, rejecting armed occupation of Iraq because of the very
dangers Bush has now assumed for America mostly alone.
It should be noted that U.S. deaths from hostile fire in Bush's
war already exceed those in the Gulf War, and there will be
many more to follow.
The word quagmire suggests Vietnam, and if the differences
between Iraq and Vietnam are fundamental, the common point
is that quagmires suck you in and don't let go. The longer the
Iraq occupation lasts, the more it will resemble Vietnam –
soldiers being killed, treasure being drained, no exit strategy,
rising discontent at home.
The conflict Iraq most resembles today comes not from
America's past, but from France's and Britain's, the imperial
powers Bush would emulate.
Think of Algiers, 1954-57. There is a scene in Pontecorvo's
great film, "The Battle of Algiers," where the colonel in charge
meets the press after crushing Arab street protest.
"They want us to leave Algeria," he says. "But we want to stay."
The French would be swept away.
Think of Baghdad in the 1920s with the British bombing the
people into submission. Military government would give way to
a pro-British Arab regime under King Faisal I, a Hashemite
imported from Arabia.
The occupation was a huge drain on British resources, but
London got Iraq's oil, as it got Iran's. Things would unravel in
the 1930s, and, in 1940, Iraq sought to join the Axis powers to
oppose the now hated British. In 1958, Iraqi nationalists took
control, murdering Faisal II and his family, and eventually
leading to Saddam Hussein.
There is only one way Bush can avoid dragging America into the
same swamp that drowned the British:
If American troops are not to become shooting ducks as our
nation is drained of $3.9 billion a month in occupation costs for
years to come, we need help from the United Nations.
Yes, that United Nations, the one Bush scorned, insulted and
deceived as he planned his war. The administration of Iraq must
be turned over to the United Nations so that occupation costs,
in lives and treasure, are transferred to a broad group of
nations.
Bush won't to do it. He'll accept money, and a few nations are
offering a few troops (paid for by us), but he will not hand power
to the United Nations. Because of that, big nations that could
help – India, Russia, France and Germany – won't sign on.
It is another Bush mistake. At this point, we need the United
Nations more than it needs us, and until Bush is willing to eat a
little crow, we will all pay – our troops more than most.
Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at
jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com. |
