Rough, re: "The unloaded part of this question is what do I think, or hope, could be accomplished by our continued involvement. I hope that we could rest at the end of our involvement knowing that our involvement has not resulted in one/group having the power to brutally oppress others."
At last...something tangible that we can discuss in terms of real world facts and probabilities. So, let's take that simple "goal" and ask, first, whether it's achievable and, second, whether "our continued involvement" could promote that goal.
The "groups" in Iraq that might oppress one another are the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. There are of course some Shiite subsects that might additionally oppress other Shiites and there are some within those three groups that are likely to oppress the less religious among their own faith. And, of course, they are all likely to oppress women..all of them...according to our mores.
Now, explain what it is that you think we can do to help assure that one of those groups doesn't gain the power to brutally oppress another?
Do you think the creation of a democratic, majority Shiite-ruled Iraq would stop the brutal oppression of subsects, or Sunnis, or Kurds if the Kurds didn't have their own militia, or women, or Christians, or secular Iraqis? If so, how would that work.
Do you think that all of the factions in Iraq are not struggling for power? If they are, what is it that the U.S. can do to prevent that struggle from playing itself out, violently and according to the culture, or cultures, of the Iraqis?
Let's face some facts. When we took out the Saddam government, disbanded the army and removed the Bathist leadership we created a huge power vacuum. We then tried to fill that vacuum with our occupation and, at the time, "generations long" intervention. Unfortunately, we were too ignorant of history, other cultures and human behaviors to understand the very simple concept that men of other nations will overlook their own differences and kill those "different" men who come to control them.
We unleashed deadly enemies. They hate us and will fight us to the death. They don't trust each other and will fight each other to the death in order to preserve their independence from rule by some other brutal, intolerant and murderous sect. Their fervor is largely religiously based and we all know how bloody people get when they think they're killing for God, now don't we?
So what is it that we, a nation of "unbelievers" thousands of miles away with ideas and standards that many of them detest so much they would die rather than adopt, can do to stop "brutal oppression" there?
I'd really like to hear something from you that addresses the tactics, strategies and short term goals that "our continued involvement" could utilize and achieve.
I don't think you'll come up with ONE SINGLE concrete suggestion. Not one. I don't think there is one.
I think that when we stop using slogans and start asking the how, when, wheres and whys, we'll find that we've been tilting at windmills at the cost of our prestige, lives, and treasure.
But you have a different view and I'd like to hear it. I hope it's not just based on the assertion that "where there's a will theres a way," or "America can do anything it puts its mind too," or "it's simply a test of wills."
Those aren't answers, they're lies dressed up to be truths. Real truths don't hide behind philosophical slogans, they face the light of scrutiny, they pass the test of reality, and they lend themselves to empirical testing.
Understanding the reasons for the recurring failure of our occupation of Iraq and projecting the impact of our continued involvement requires intelligent analysis, critical thinking and a deep understanding of the limits of the power of nations and the utter inability of one people to change the thinking and culture of another. We've done far too little of that. Ed |
