The Surge, The Will Of The People, & Mission Accomplished

From a posting at Reuters Blog (see for entire post: http://uk.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/worldNews?type=worldNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B8Tgv4vF1HcJz7ZVwXFoGVva&src=blogBurst_UKworldNews&bbPostId=Cz89Owv0CZGgjB1mPkWEe6qbwBzjcujZdqmLnBEKYcqHoPXlT&bbParentWidgetId=B8Tgv4vF1HcJz7ZVwXFoGVva)

"While I’m inclined to agree with the Senator (McCain) that it may take decades to complete George Bush’s mission in Iraq, I believe it is quite clear that it’s a mission we shouldn’t have undertaken. It’s also a mission that must end. Neither George Bush or John McCain can will the Iraqi people to adopt the outcome we imagine would best serve our interests. Even if both men believe they can, reality should tell us we can’t afford the cost.

The 2008 election is our opportunity to send an important message…a message of restoration that reconnects us with our defining principles. Consistent with the intentions of our founding fathers, it should be the will of the American people that determines whether the war in Iraq should proceed. Likewise, it must be the will of the Iraqi people that determines the defining principles that will guide their future. Only then will our mission be accomplished." - Daniel DiRito


The author of the referenced piece, and others with the same political message always seem to miss the central objective of "The Surge". This strategy was conceived not so much to save American lives, although that was an important and necessary by-product, as much to save Iraqi lives (who have been killed in a ratio of more than 10:1 that of American soldiers), stabilize Iraq and allow a new nation to grow where there was none before.

The histoy of Iraq is that it was never a nation, but a province of a greater Arabia. It was variously adminsitered by the Mufti of Istanbul and after the British defeated the Ottoman Empire during WW1, by the British and their appointed Arabic princes. In 1921, this included Faisal who ruled Iraq as a British "colony" or emirate, as an extension of a fading British Empire. Iraq never experienced popular (majority) rule and so never experienced any semblance of stability or national prosperity. After coming to power by coup in 1979, it can be argued that Saddam Hussein himself was an "occupier" of Iraq. His minority Baath/Sunni party was sponsored by Syria. The coup was possible due to Iraq's unstable history of monarchies and military dictatorships that did not reflect the will of its peoples (Sunni,Shia and Kurd). Hussein's rule was therefore unjust and in need of removal in order for Iraq to become a place of peace and prosperity.

The author, and others like him, try to politicize the current status of Iraq to advocate for a "withdrawal" by American and other allied forces, as if that is an answer to the problem. Criticizing American financial support for those who help create security by identifying insurgents and terrorists, the author openly acknowledges that what many Iraqis need most is an income so they can survive and thrive. This is true of all peoples at all points in time, and is the ultimate goal of "The Surge". How does American withdrawal help the Iraqi people achieve economic stability and provide them "an income"?

To become a nation, Iraq needs an economy that can offer a promise of employment to most people, as does any nation that hopes for stability. Where there is civil unrest, destruction and violence, there is inevitably economic trouble for a significant portion of the population. America chose the path of "nation-builder" when it began the regime change in 2003. While the reasoning and wisdom of that decision will be excellent fodder for academics for generations to come, it does not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.

It has been demonstrated that nations can be rebuilit or built from scratch through the intelligent and selfless effort of other peoples. Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WW2 in this way and are still today, good friends of the American people after once being bitter rivals. After WW1, there was no specific Allied effort to rebuild a defeated Germany, and the result was a spiritually broken, impoverished people that made poor political decisions leading to WW2. Today, many governments, including America, are trying to rebuild a broken Yugoslavia into nations that are ruled by popular decision, and not by minority dictate and military oppression. How is this different than the goal for Iraq?

The world has learned from the lessons of the Marshall Plan that nation building can succeed if done for truly unselfish (non-imperialist) reasons, as opposed to the purely political objective of Vietnam, which was to stop the advance of Communism without regard to the needs of its people. But reconstruction does require a long term commitment and significant investment. All peoples everywhere want peace and prosperity. That is what is at stake for the Iraqi people. Should the anti-Iraqi left wing of the American public be allowed to deny this ideal from the Iraqi people? And what alternatives does the author, Daniel DiRito and other liberals, offer other than to walk away from the Iraqi people leaving them with no hope for the future? This defective strategy plays right into the hands of anti-American terrorists. It will show a people who have suffered greatly, they cannot depend on Americans to stay the course, a mistake too many times repeated by a weak-willed American public.