Conversing With Kel

Dear Sis had a few questions of me based on my life experience and education. It was good, writing things down causes one to codify thought a bit more cogently. So, read on. You might agree, you might disagree, you might be surprised; all good.

What are your thoughts on the war in Iraq?

I’ll analyze the whys and wherefores of the war in Iraq presently. Keep in mind that this is not the war in Afghanistan; in some ways they are related and in some ways they differ. The war in Iraq overshadows the war in Afghanistan so much that few remember that we are currently fighting two wars.

We are fighting two wars, and with the exception of economic consequences, few citizens at home feel any effect of the war. Society as a whole is impatient; we are in an internet age where attention spans are measured in mere minutes. We saw the nearly instantaneous wrecking of Saddam’s army, and we do not understand that winning peace is infinitely more complex, lengthier that winning a war.

We’re tired of war, yet we have not experienced it. We as a society are unwilling to accept the idea that things are not all black and white; we cannot merely smash an army and have everything in that area be perfect, instantly. We are spoiled and selfish as a whole, and our sense of entitlement allows us to criticize our own nation for its efforts abroad without understanding or offering any pulling together.

In one sense, this is symptomatic of a gradual disintegration of society. We see the effect in gangs, unrestricted illegal immigration and the breakdown of the family unit. The Arab world sees such non-state entities as Hamas, Hezbollah, and even al Qaida. The Romans had their barbarians, after all.

Afghanistan and Iraq are measures to reverse this collapse, to impart order upon a most chaotic area of the world which, if unchecked, could influence further destabilization elsewhere. Imparting order (“winning the peace”) is far more complex than smashing an army. That’s the part that society in general does not understand.

Should we have gone to war?

I’m going to answer this question in terms of Afghanistan (I have answered in regard to Iraq in the question below). Yes, we had to go to war. Al Qaida brought war to our lands; regardless of our response, we were at war. (Recall that al Qaida is not a state entity and as such, there is no “front line” of the battle;.) Supporting the “Northern Alliance” against the Taliban in Afghanistan allowed for the toppling of the Talib government of Afghanistan, a notoriously militant, extremist Islamic government which encouraged the training and basing of al Qaida, allowing al Qaida to project their power across the globe. After the first, lesser, bombing of the World Trade Center, the administration of the time fired off a few cruise missiles and called the threat eradicated. Events proved otherwise.

Should we have invaded Iraq?

It’s a good question, and certainly valid. The answer is, that depends. Depends upon one’s point of view. Taking the short view, no, we should have not gone to war. Forget about the weapons of mass destruction – that’s only a journalistic effort to sell more copy; were this 1898 we’d call it “yellow journalism” (which, ironically, spurred the populace to accept a war with Spain). War is expensive and people die. We have no business invading other countries – that’s why the world hates us. War destroyed the ruling bodies of Afghanistan and Iraq and helped the fragmentation of society there. In the case of Iraq, war increased the likelihood of a confrontation with Iran.

Taking the longer view, which I subscribe to, the war in Iraq was necessary for several reasons. Our administration believed that Saddam’s Iraq was developing, if not in possession of, weapons of mass destruction. In a nutshell, we did not understand that there were no such weapons, that they existed only in strong talk from Iraq directed toward neighboring nations (such as Iran). Saddam was a murdering despot who oppressed the majority of the Iranian people in order to serve his ends, and the war toppled his regime. Simply put, it was the right thing to do, regardless of cost. Additionally, with a pre-existing war raging in Afghanistan, and Al Qaida potentially relocating support facilities to Iraq, it made sense to carry the fight to Iraq in order to keep Al Qaida on the ropes. And, with a chance to establish a democracy in the Arab World, there is great hope for a bright, progressive future for the Middle East, to bring the Arab World into the modern age of education, tolerance, technology and a better economy, which would end the cycle of violence and oppression from radical Muslims, exposing as failed the notion of a reunion of the Islamic Caliphate. Finally, a strong, democratic Iraq would act to counter Iran in regional strategic affairs, essentially forcing them into a defensive posture and limiting the damage Iran could otherwise wreak.

How long should this go on (the US forces in Iraq)?

The common perception is that US forces should remain in Iraq until there is a functioning democracy. Another view is that forces should remain until the threat has passed. After smashing Saddam’s army, we have spent five years crushing the Sunni militias/Ba’ath Party henchmen and al Qaida-in-Iraq, and then worked to marginalize the Shi’ite militias and end the Iranian influences. We have spent five years and countless dollars rebuilding the army and police forces, finding leaders and getting them proper training and experience, rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. The job is nearly complete. What remains is for the elected government to ask us to leave, and for us to go. Only in such manner would the elected government have claim to legitimacy (and thus, permanence) as opposed to being puppets of the Americans.