Though I'm an avid lurker, it's been awhile since I cranked out a diary (Feb. 2005 to be exact). Back then I had grown tired of arguing with proponents of the pottery barn theory especially during the last presidential election. Those who insisted that it was our responsibility to stay and fix Iraq lest a cataclysm follow our departure.
Well of course we've stayed and things have gotten worse. Though many of those I tangled with here long ago abandoned this line of reasoning, two articles in this morning's SF Chronicle highlighted how this colonialist mentality reigns within the Democratic party.
Carolyn Lochhead's Even if Democrats win White House, troops likely to remain in Iraq is worth the read. It goes beyond simply regurgitating the Democrats litany of excuses for why the can't end the war and includes some more honest explanations for why democrats aren't trying very hard to stop this madness. Even more refreshing is the the inclusion of expert opinion on the absurdity of the democratic leadership's position (most recently hinted at by Sen. Clinton on the Sunday talk shows.
First there's this bit from a former Clintonite,
Charles Kupchan, who worked in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, said that among Democrats there is "a sincere belief that we can't pack up and go home. And that is, I think, a view that is congealing among the party's leadership. In fact, I would say it's ... a more potent political force right now than fear of being blamed" if the situation in Iraq gets even worse after U.S. forces pull back.
Followed by this beaut from a conservative think tanker,
"I've had an opportunity to talk about Iraq and other military topics with some Democratic candidates like Sen. Clinton and Sen. (Chris) Dodd, and the conclusion I come to is that America will still have forces in Iraq five years from now," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank.
"This whole situation reminds me of the movie title, 'No Way Out.' The only way that we could make a clean break with Iraq today is to accept the possibility of utter chaos in the world's principal oil-producing region. ... Once we get a Democratic administration - if we get a Democratic administration - things will change, but not to a degree that would satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party."
Lochhead turns to Wayne Smith an old state department hand to demolish this argument.
Exactly what are we going to do over the next two or three, or four or five or six years in Iraq to avert a civil war, to somehow abate the deep intercommunal hatred, to make the army loyal to a central government that is dysfunctional and corrupt?" asked Wayne White, head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team from 2003-2005, and an adviser to the Iraq Study Group.
"I can't come up with any way in which we can pull that back together again. You don't want to be caught there in the middle of it. You could stay there three, four, five more years, lose another 1,000 American dead, 5,000 terribly maimed and blow another $200 billion and have the same thing happen" as is likely to happen after a withdrawal.
None of this is earthshattering analysis for most of you but it lies at the heart of our inability to come to terms with the mess that is Iraq. Namely, that we simply lack the power to impose our will on this situation. There are other actors, the Iraqis, with their own motivations and agendas that will thwart our designs for their country.
Robert Scheer's column also in today's Chronicle lays this case out far better than I can. First he takes Joe Biden to taks for one upping Bush's request for additional funding for bomb reistant armored vehicles noting that these are the weapons of occupiers and that ordering lots of them is a clear indication of a long term commitment to occupation since these vehicles won't even roll off the assemblylime for months and years. Then the kill shot,
The MRAPs are needed only as a weapon of choice for an occupying army in a country that strongly resists foreigners. If the Iraqis had greeted us as liberators, as Biden and other hawks anticipated, than they would be throwing flowers at our troop carriers rather than being complicit in planting the bombs that destroy them. Fortified vehicles only further separate the occupier from the rest of the population, which will remain fully vulnerable to attack. The emphasis on the protection of the foreigner - the Green Zone model - is a failed tactic of colonizers that alienates the local populace.
Nor is it an issue that can be solved by splitting Iraq into three religious and ethnic enclaves - Biden's other brilliant proposal from last week.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Iraqis, whom Biden did not bother to consult, rejected that prescription for ethnic cleansing and endless civil war. Fully 98 percent of Iraqis told BBC/ABC pollsters that dividing their country along sectarian lines would be bad for Iraq, and 65 percent said that a quick U.S. withdrawal would not make civil war more likely.
But what do they know? They're just Iraqis