Kristof has done it again ($). This time though, it isn’t about genocide. His column is about early reporting of the Iraq War that described the violence and the potential for Civil War. I must be honest that I was also one of the people that ignored the early reports of escalating violence. I was desperate for Iraq to succeed because I wanted to see a relatively stable democracy develop in the Middle East. I hated the argument that Iraq was incapable of being a democracy and thought success here would prove that it could exist anywhere.
I need to give some credit where it is due, mostly to my friends that had said for a long time that this war was a mistake and that this would happen (Macie and LEM to name two). As soon as reports came out that Iraq was wrapped in violence, they brought this to my attention. And when they did, I told them they were ignoring the good reports and I said that things would settle down.
While I do admit that I was hesitant to hear the bad news even as it got worse, I still maintain that there were points when good management of the war could have made this more successful. I think if there had been more troops and we were able to maintain stability early on, we might have avoided the civil war that appears imminent. I must also recognize that part of the reason I cling to that belief is that I am an optimist, and I don’t want to admit that democracies cannot be helped along by foreign involvement. I believe that everyone wants some level of freedom and no one really wants (or needs) an oppressive regime like Saddam’s.
With that said, we do need to learn something from this example. Creating a new democracy is obviously a difficult mission and can end up with us leaving the country worse that when we found it. We must be prepared to use significant troop presence over long periods of time if we are to be successful. Since we are probably not prepared to do this, we should avoid nation-building scenerios like this one in the future.
What I am afraid of though is that this (similar to Mogadishu) becomes proof of why we should not ever get involved in other country’s affairs. Iraq was clearly a mistake, but there are other situations that could use international intervention and will not require long term troop commitment (Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon / Palestine). The Middle East (and Africa) has a violent past and present, but there is good we can do to protect defenseless victims and help the region move forward.
1 comment:
Wow Chainz, I really didn't think I'd ever hear you, always the optimist, say this. I agree with parts of what you say about foreign nations helping to build democracies, but I just feel this was doomed from the start. Not because people liked living under Saddam's regime, but because it just never seemed like the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could get along. I realize there are exceptions to this, but it seems like there are enough in each faction that don't want anything to do with one another. To try and create a cohesive democracy out of this just doesn't seem feasible. Maybe after several generations things would get better, but what do you do in the meantime? Maybe they'd all be better off as their own countries, but then you have to ask - could they really survive on their own? And what do you do about the dispersion of the different groups throughout Iraq? For the record, I wish you were right about Iraq because I think a different (positive) outcome would have really made a difference in the war on terror.
Post a Comment