FOLLOWING last week's announcement by President Bush of a temporary troop surge to pacify Baghdad, it seemed like every pundit in America chimed in with a confident pronouncement of the proper course for Iraq.I am not going make another attempt to lay out a detailed, foolproof strategy for winning in Iraq because, frankly, I do not know one. If there was ever a chance for a simple resolution to the anarchy plaguing Iraq, that time is long gone. The situation has become so convoluted, with so many elements to consider and so many factors unknown, that it is impossible to be very confident in any specific strategy.In such an uncertain and discouraging time, it is crucial that Americans remain committed to winning the battle for Iraq.
America cannot allow itself to become fatigued by the stalemate in Iraq. We need to understand that the outcome in Iraq will not be determined primarily by a specific American strategy. Whether Iraq ends up as a strategic ally, enemy, or something in the middle depends primarily on our understanding of the war's significance and our resolve to win.
Judging from polls and the media, it seems that most Americans are in a state of cognitive dissonance. We want to win in Iraq, but we want that victory to be quick, cheap, and fair to all Iraqi parties. This mindset is completely unrealistic, and Americans must decide what kind of outcome in Iraq they can accept, and how much they are willing to spend to achieve it. At the bare minimum, we should seek to have an Iraq that can control its own internal affairs, does not threaten peaceful neighbors, and does not harbor terrorists or assist rogue states. We should seek to make Iraq as liberal, democratic, and egalitarian as possible, but we must have realistic expectations.
Even this least acceptable outcome for Iraq will not be possible without American involvement. It will cost tens of billions more dollars, more casualties, and several more years. We must understand, though, that the cost of abandoning Iraq is even greater.
This war is not like the Vietnam War, where America's retreat resulted in communist takeover of only two other countries. If we leave Iraq now,the country will be a horror. Sunni militants and Shia death squads will have free rein to massacre civilians in mixed areas of Iraq. Without the support of the American military, the current Iraqi government will have no choice but to acquiesce to the demands of radical Shia leaders affiliated with Iran like Moqtada al-Sadr. Our supporters among the Iraqi people will be slaughtered by the radical Islamists. Alan Mendoza wrote in The Guardian that our withdrawal "would be tantamount to willful abandonment of a nascent democracy created in partnership with the Iraqi people to the forces of terrorism, sectarian hatred and chaos." The world will hear the message that America is a capricious nation that abandons its commitments and deserves no trust.
In the long term, the results would be even more far-reaching. Iraq would become yet another haven for terrorist bases. Iran would be delighted to see that we had left behind, in place of its enemy Saddam, a sympathetic Shia government. Our withdrawal would embolden Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and possibly lead frightened Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to make their own nuclear programs. We can see, then, that leaving Iraq would be a geopolitical calamity of the highest degree.
The strategy we employ in Iraq is important. Even more important, however, is our resolve to win, for war is a struggle of wills. Osama and Saddam both believed that America's wealth and success had made it a decadent country unwilling to take casualties and fight insurgencies. Thus far, we have shown them to be wrong, but the thought that we can withdraw our troops from faraway Iraq without consequences is a tempting one.
The truth is that we are going to have to remain heavily involved in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. The region demands so much American involvement for three reasons: the world relies on Middle Eastern oil, most countries in the region lack stable government and healthy political systems, and large portions of Middle Eastern societies embrace or sympathize with Islamic extremism. Until one of those factors changes, it is essential that we remain committed to the Iraqi democracy until it can stand on its own.
Stephen Parsley's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
