I recently read an article on MSNBC about a startling new development in Iraq. Apparently, Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is calling for a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops. This announcement is diametrically opposed to the Bush Administration’s consistent refusal to deploy such a timetable. While my own personal foreign policy views tend to lean to the right, I am deeply concerned about the costs to blood and treasure that we have sustained through our involvement in Iraq. With the Iraqi government itself rejecting the need for an unconditional U.S. military commitment we can no longer justify the absence of a clear exit strategy for our forces in that country.
One of the most popular justifications for our continued presence in Iraq, and the failure to set any timetables for withdrawal, is the fear that insurgents will simply “lay low” until we leave and then inflict mass chaos upon the country afterward. This excuse attempts to simplify a much more complicated reality on the ground. First, I don’t believe that insurgents will ever truly “lay low”; violence may periodically subside, but radical elements are driven by hate and will continue to take shots at us whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Second, the fear that our departure will result in a surge of violence may be correct, but it is also the unavoidable crucible which must be taken up by any new government.
Civilization is an artificial construct imposed upon the harsh realities of nature or “the jungle”. In nature, the strong hold dominion over the weak, and violence is a perfectly acceptable means of acquisition. When a group of people collectively attempts to rise above this barbaric existence and resolve disputes through adherence to commonly accepted law, civilization is born. Nevertheless, there will always be elements within the new society that take exception with the ideals and principles of the majority. Often, these elements will resort to the tactics of the jungle - violence and terror - to resist the will of the collective. Such rebellions can only be repressed by the use of these same tactics by society itself. Ultimately, the true test of any civilization’s longevity is its ability to enforce law and discipline - by violence if necessary - among its citizenry.
What does this mean for Iraq? We could win the battle against the insurgents - reduce the violence in Iraq to almost nothing - and yet, when we leave, there will almost certainly be a violent challenge to the new government. Various interests will test the Iraqi leadership to see if it can fill the power vacuum we leave behind. Nevertheless, until the Iraqi government demonstrates its ability to enforce law and order without foreign assistance many within that country will refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. As others have noted, the time will come when we must take the training wheels off Iraq. It will be messy, it will be violent, and it might fail. Few new governments have had the luxury of guaranteed success; indeed, the proud heritage of many nations is their triumph over seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Why should Iraq be any different?
We are reaching a critical period in U.S. foreign policy where we must make some difficult choices - as well as some terrible sacrifices - if we are to confront the most pressing challenges of our time. Many have noted that failure in Iraq would have disastrous consequences - I agree. But can we afford to be held hostage by this single concern to the exclusion of threats posed by rogue powers such as Iran and North Korea? Can we afford to ignore the threat to South American stability posed by Venezuela? At present, our military is spread so thin we cannot even contain a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Beyond these immediate concerns, our compromised military strength will bleed our leverage with emerging powers such as Russia and China. We need to intelligently quantify what additional effort will be required for “success” in Iraq, and determine whether we can afford to pay that price while simultaneously dealing with other equally serious concerns.
To advocate a timetable for withdrawal does not mean that one favors immediate military abandonment of Iraq. Even if such a thing were logistically possible, it would ignore the remarkable progress which has recently been made in brining stability to the country. Ironically, it is this very progress which has likely given the Iraqi leadership the confidence to suggest an end to U.S. military assistance. Regardless of whether we agree with the wisdom of this request, we cannot expect the Iraqi people to recognize the sovereignty of their own government if we are not willing to recognize it ourselves. Responsible foreign policy demands that our military commitment in Iraq cannot, and should not continue to be indefinite. President Bush must acknowledge the will of the Iraqis, as well as the majority of the American people, and deploy a timetable for troop withdrawal. Such a timetable is essential both for Iraqi progress and U.S. foreign policy success.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
