Fareed Zakaria writes an editorial in the
Washington Post that I strongly disagree with. My first disagreement is with
Does anyone really believe that America's leaving Iraq would improve the situation there? It would create a power vacuum, the insurgency would get stronger, the Shiites might retaliate against Sunni violence, setting off a civil war, and the Kurds could be tempted to secede. Iraq would then be exporting terrorism and instability.
We are in a Lose-Lose relationship with Iraq which has steadily gotten worse over the last year. We are spending incredible amounts of money and lives but failing to achieve any of our goals. There is no evidence that things are going to get better. Yet Zakaria thinks we should stay because if we leave, civil war might break out. Zakaria misses that there already is a civil war going on and we are doing the vast majority of the fighting for one of the sides. The biggest casus belli for the civil war is our presence there. As long as we are there, the Shiites have an incentive to provoke the Sunnis because angry Sunnis results in Sunnis and Americans killing each other. If we announce that we are going to gradually leave, then Iraqis have to start dealing with what they want their unoccupied country to be. Right now, they are focused on killing the infidel occupiers whose every reason for invading was a lie.
Zakaria then writes:
And even if U.S. troops are gone, chaos and civil war in Iraq will deal a body blow to U.S. interests and ideals.
How can turning over control to a democratically elected government be more damaging to our ideals than having a ruthless and bloody occupation?
The next sentences are:
It's not just al Qaeda and its allies who will delight in the mayhem; all anti-American and antidemocratic forces in the region will be emboldened. Whatever you thought of the invasion, to advocate a quick exit from Iraq is neither hawkish nor dovish; it's the foreign policy of an ostrich.
This is all nonsense to smear people who think we should withdraw as wanting to encourage al Qaeda and "anti-American and antidemocratic forces". Our occupation of Iraq has been a recruiting bonanza for al Qaeda, so though they claim victory when we go, it will be less helpful to them that our staying. What is an "anti-American" force? Iran? Having our military tied down and slowly destroyed in Iraq isn't deterring them. Our use of torture and other repressive measures in Iraq has been a boon to antidemocratic rulers everywhere.
Zakaria then zips out into fantasyland:
An active American -- and international -- presence can also prod Iraq to respect basic human rights and to keep its bureaucracy relatively honest, its courts independent and its oil revenue transparent -- all critical in these formative years.
Does Zakaria not know that we tortured Iraqis? That we are bombing civilians in Sunni areas? That $9 billion is missing from CPA funds? We have done so much to undermine our credibility that there is no way we can prod the new Iraqi government to do the right thing.
Zakaria continutes his visit to fantasyland with:
The biggest obstacle to a productive U.S. relationship with Iraq is the widespread anti-Americanism in the country. That's why some of us were so critical of the many mistakes of the occupation; they threatened to destroy the possibilities of a long-term U.S. involvement there. But I do not believe that this hostility is endemic. Polls suggest that most Iraqis have been frustrated, disappointed and enraged because the occupation failed to deliver to them basic security and a better life. If and when conditions improve, they will see the United States in a different light.
We have occupied the country for over a year. We have destroyed whatever goodwill the Iraqis held for us. But now that a pro-Iranian government has been elected, Zakaria thinks that (1) we can suddenly deliver better living conditions and (2) Iraqis will give the US credit instead of the pro-Iranian government.
Zakaria concludes with a ridiculous argument:
Remember those often-cited studies saying that having a large force to secure the peace is crucial in nation-building? Well, all of them point to another, perhaps even more important, requirement for success: Don't leave. During the 1990s the places the United States and its allies left -- Haiti, Somalia -- were failures. The places where they stayed -- Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor -- have been relative successes.
First off, Somalia wasn't a failure because we left. We left because Somalia was a failure. Secondly, of course we will fail at nation-building if we leave too early. But we have already failed in Iraq. WE HAVE FAILED! Every bad consequence that people foresaw before the invasion has happened with the exception of Turkey invading the Kurdish region. The question is what we are going to do about that failure. To me, it is obvious that we have so screwed up the occupation that there is no way we can reverse our failures. Both the US and Iraq would be far better off if we admit that our presence is not helping the country. Perhaps the UN or the EU can pick up the pieces and salvage something. Maybe the Shiites and Sunnis can learn to live peacefully together. It's a risk, but it is better than the certainty of continuing our failed military occupation.