Friday, February 24, 2006

Iraq: 'We Broke It, Now We Own It'

Forget about all the justifications, good intentions, historical precedents, flag waving, democracy wishing, opportunism, finger pointing and other blame gaming surrounding the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

With that war-torn country consuming itself in an orgy of violence following the bombing of the Golden Dome earlier this week, one thing needs to be remembered above all.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it with the accumulated wisdom of a distinguished military career that spanned Vietnam to the first Gulf War, and a second career as a diplomat on the world stage:
We broke it, now we own it.
And, I add, are compelled to fix it.

Powell's words must not be forgotten as Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war and the Bush administration's post-invasion scheme further unravels. (Notice that I did not call it a strategy; there never was one.)

The Times of London provides this horrifying summary of the last 24 hours:
At least 200 Iraqis and 7 U.S. soldiers killed. These included 53 in Baghdad, 47 at a roadblock in Nahrawan on the outskirts of Baghdad, 25 in Basra, where 12 inmates were removed from a prison and 11 were killed, and 16 in Baquba where a bomb aimed at an Iraqi foot patrol took out 8 soldiers and 8 civilians.
The U.S. created, aided and abetted the conditions that led to this upsurge in sectarian violence.

I believe from the bottom of my heart that most Iraqis -- no matter their ethnicity or religion -- want a civil, violence-free society. But merely acknowledging that is only a starting point.

With responsibility comes accountability.

It is the responsibility of the U.S. to ameliorate the conditions that it created that have led to this latest and hitherto greatest crisis, which inconveniently comes at the very time when political necessity at home demands a plan to withdraw troops that are now more desperately needed than ever.

The Bush administration also must be held accountable for the witch's brew of horrors that it concocted.

I take no comfort in the fact that the architects of the war -- notably Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- have been revealed as profoundly incompetent and extraordinarily shortsighted.

(Have any three key American government officials been as wrongheaded and caused more carnage than these? Well, perhaps LBJ, McNamara and Rusk. But that only serves to remind us that the lessons of the Vietnam quagmire, which had so much to do with the emergence and growth of the neoconservative movement that underpins Bush foreign policy, have been cast asude by the president's own coven of "we know best" neocon hawks. They have chosen to forget history and we all are condemned to repeat it.)

Yes, Iraqi politicial and religious leaders also have responsibilities. Yes, the fledgling national Army and police forces must prove that they are capable of putting down the violence and maintaining law and order over the long haul without U.S. hand holding. But confining U.S. troops to their garrisons while Shiites and Sunnis maraude, loot, kidnap and kill will not win the day.

Only the U.S. can provide the stability still so maddeningly elusive in Baghdad and some other parts of the country nearly four years after a post-invasion occupation that Vice President Cheney smugly predicted would be over practically as soon as it began. A mere three months, he said, and American troops would be homeward bound.

Only the U.S. can deal with an infrastructure crisis that leaves Iraqis with less oil, fewer hours of electricity and, extraordinarily, less hope in some respects than during Saddam's reign. Did anyone believe that there would be a need for daytime curfews three years and nine months after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"?

It would be criminal to simply dump the huge mess that the U.S. has made back on Iraqis and say, "it's your country, it's your responsibility, it's time for us to go," but more and more people are suggesting just that in and out of Washington. But abandonment is not an option.

The Bush administration has been notable for talking the talk, but falling far short when it comes to walking the walk.

It is one thing when the victims of its hubristic ineptness are Americans, whether New Orleans residents clinging to makeshift rafts amidst raging floodwaters because of a botched federal disaster response or elderly pensioners desperately in need of life-saving medications because of a botched federal prescription drug plan.

It is entirely another when they are a people who, for the most part, are trying to put behind them the duel nightmares of first the Saddam Era and now the Bush Era and get on with their lives.
We broke it, now we own it.
And are compelled to fix it.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The latest atrocities in Iraq clearly delineate the gulf in "social assumptions" — the mental framework which dictates the way communities generally behave — between the West represented by the USA, and the world of the Muslim Near East.

Shaun's anguish is understandable, but it isn't new. These are the same arguments which Americans and other Westerners were debating on Day 1. Yet no progress seems to have been made in changing Iraqi society, and from time to time another outrage convinces us that we're wasting our time there, and we might as well go home and let the sorry bastards sort themselves out.

We said the same things about the Irish, the Israelis and the Palestinians, Indians and Pakistanis, Mainland China and Taiwan, and a bunch of others. In Nigeria, Christians and Muslims are killing each other again.

Isolationism is deeply attractive. Why not just let them get on with it?

It can't be; the peace and prosperity of the Near East is pegged firmly to the peace and prosperity of the lands we live in, and the "social assumptions" we espouse.

Some of the facts are in dispute, such as how much electricity Iraqis have, but that doesn't matter too much. What is not in dispute is that it takes a long time to change a society's "social assumptions." The USA's constitution is a piffling 200 and some years old, and still evolving. British democracy has only been around for 800 years, and is a light to the world.

The importance of staying the course in Iraq is the effect it will have on the other countries in the region. In a wired world, a "clash of civilisations" affects us all.

The growing symptoms of that clash are all too apparent at this very moment. The contradictions and hypocrises of the cartoon riots have brought the game to a whole new level.

There will be more death and destruction, and it may be true to say we Westerners are engaged in a war. Sticking it out is unavoidable because the alternative is too horrible to think about.

And if there is some ineptitude along the way — and when was there ever a war without it? — that's part of the game.

It now seems certain that it will not be given to the Bush Administration to bring this thing to a happy conclusion.

Why should this burden fall on America? Because only America has the power. The rest of us can only help.

Americans will have to elect another Administration, and maybe another after that, which is capable of winning. Is there one waiting?

I fear not. Yet.

Shaun Mullen said...

I can only admire Country Bumpkin's pragmatic optimism, if I may call it that. We at least agree that abandonment is not an option. The larger questions, which he poses, is whether there is a presidential administration in the pipeline that can led us out of our wilderness of pre- and misconceptions and help save Iraq in the process.