But Nadine, the real crux of Carl's argument is this:
if we leave Iraq with a regime that is compatible with our national interests, the resistance will continue against that regime, and eventually overturn it. I realize there is no way to "prove" this in advance, it can't even be proven after the first government is formed, it can only be shown to be true some indeterminate period of time after the next Iraqi government is formed and the US leaves. The reason I (and I think Carl as well, but I shouldn't put words in his mouth) believe this is twofold: (1) we believe that the way Iraqis conceive their basic interests and the way we conceive our basic interests are at odds with each other. In particular over the Israeli/Palestinean issue. And (2), even more important (all politics really are local), the Iraqi political divisions are so bitter that the stability of any governing coalition will be fragile at best, and there will always be opponents who will be willing to use violence against it. There are too many weapons there and too much potential wealth and too many deaths/ghosts from the past to make any other outcome likely. Even if a government can be formed that somehow contains these tensions without violence for a few years, the very improbability of this outcome should have constrained us from doing what we did when we did it in the way we did it. And would have constrained us from doing it if it had not been part of the Republican plan to win the '02 election and, next year, the '04 election. We have better things to do with our wealth and soldiers and attention. Like fighting the real war on Islamic extremism/terrorism, and winning it before they get nukes from Pakistan or some other source.
Long term, this policy will prove to be a disaster, IMHO. |
