Inevitable Iraq

Quite a lot has been said about Iraq, and justly so because it is a defining issue of our times, and a great deal of political hopes have been pinned to it (all across the spectrum). The arguments have been made, and as I am no expert in the field, I cannot refute them, that the Bush Administration succeeded in the military action but did not plan for the aftermath. They fall into one form or another of "win the war and lose the peace" slogans and dialogs.

The fact is, this is the only place where politics can debate on Iraq, because we have gone there and our military was not going to lose that fight. The argument about whether or not we should have gone happened, and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress. Twice, and then several times again. The numbers are staggering that suggest, not only here in the USA but around the world, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with.

Even the latest chicanery by political detractors in an attempt to wildly distort Alan Greenspan's words actually highlights the fact that Hussein was a global disaster actively trying to happen. When people claim he said the Iraq war was for oil, what he was saying was that he advised the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with in order to secure the world's oil supplies or there would be worldwide economic meltdown. So he wasn't saying the war was for oil, but he was certainly making a case that it could be, and that he would have supported it.

So the accusation today (because detractors are fast running out of enemy ground upon which to stand) is that the Bush Administration rushed to war without a plan for securing the victory. That we won military objectives in no time but managed to create a political and social vacuum in which atrocities and terrorism spread. Whether or not we are making some progress now and whether or not Iraq becomes a peaceful, supportive democracy in the future (hopefully near) is beside the point.

The "elephant in the room" (a phrase I happen to love now, despite my general dislike of clichés) is that we had to go in there, and we had to act fast. Whether or not the intelligence reports were correct that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (some were found, but not the hoards that the media expected) or Saddam Hussein was looking to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger (and Joe Wilson's own report claiming that he found no evidence of the attempted deal actually increased non-USA intelligence estimates that Hussein actually was seeking uranium) or that oil was in danger of being globally destabilized (though how you call a resource in the hands of Iran and Venezuela "stable" is beyond me) the votes were in from a huge coalition (larger than World War II) as well as massive numbers here in the USA (especially in Congress) and we had to act.

Just how does one plan to help a country become stable after a war? I would love to hear more about how it was done after World War II. Germany and Japan are amazing countries well worth extolling for where they are today.

First and foremost, in my humble opinion, the problem today is with the immediacy of media and their vapid, rapid need for higher ratings through controversy. In the aftermath of WWII there were journalists, and doubtless on the scene in Germany and Japan, but their ability to affect public opinion with sensational headlines was diminished by the technology of the day. Not to mention there was a Democrat in office during and immediately after the war. Not a modern day Democrat, thank God, but a Democrat nevertheless.

As a result I believe we were forced to appear too nice, too hands off, and there was a powerful microscope watching our every move lest we attempt to turn Iraq into a little mini-USA, or puppet state. Due to this public sentiment, we attempted to turn too much over to the Iraqis too fast. The accusation that we were occupiers was everywhere. Well, we occupied Germany and Japan, and last I checked they were doing pretty well, were very independent of the United States, and certainly did not do whatever the White House told them. Yes, we might have had to control the country for a year or two, and we might have had to appoint people to certain positions, and we might have had to make stronger recommendations about what should and should not be included in their constitution, but the result would have been a stable Iraq faster and more reliably than we have seen.

In short, the Bush Administration was told not to have a plan for the peace, because it could have only been a Puppet Plan, and then was accused for not having a plan when the people of Iraq didn't magically fall into place and create a beautiful, sparkling, model democracy overnight.

Where did peace happen, and quickly? Where there was martial law, or military control over areas. Those places have been handed over more quickly, and with better results, than the places that were told we couldn't help them set up their politics.

Well duh. Maybe it was a little much to ask people who had been oppressed by their leadership for decades to suddenly become elder statesmen. They needed guidance, they still need help, and we're going to be there longer because we "didn't do it right the first time". Why didn't we? Because the decisions would have been unpopular with the people who (politically) needed us to fail.

Will Iraq become a peaceful democracy, or at least a country that isn't hell bent on our destruction? I can't say. I believe so, and I believe we're seeing great progress over there. I do believe the human spirit yearns to be free, to make its own choices, to succeed on its own merits. It may be a bumpy road, but let's face the ultimate fact, people: while we like to believe (and I do) that God created everyone with equal value, not everyone's path is, or challenges are, the same.