As most of us know by now, recently, Iraq has been hit by a violent Islamic insurgency. Consequently, there is a lot of debate now over whether the United States should intervene in a military manner, and to what extent.
But overall, there is the Republican response, that the United States should in fact recommit military assets to fighting in Iraq, and the President's response, which has so far been to refuse the idea of returning boots on the ground to Iraq.
Obviously, much of this is driven by the usual Republican philosophy, to run against anything that President Obama supports, even if it goes against their previous stance, and even if it goes against popular support.
But, whether this is just cynical political grandstanding, or a genuine belief in the virtue of returning militarily to Iraq, could be exposed by a simple proposal.
So here is my modest proposal to the Republican Party: if you want to return troops to Iraq, make this a part of your 2014 political platform.
On the part of Democrats, they can take Republican statements in support of sending troops to the Middle East, and incorporate them into political messaging. Challenge them in debates, at town halls, and on the news shows over their support for returning to Iraq, and force them to take an official position. Do they really want to send troops back to Iraq? These are valid questions, and would likely be questions that whoever gets elected in November would face.
If Republicans do indeed feel like sending troops to Iraq is the right thing to do, then by all means they should make that crystal clear in their political campaigns. Not just about sending troops now, but their policies for the future military presense in Iraq, and what they would propose to do if/when the insurgency comes back.
If this is really the right thing for them to propose, then they should feel confident that the voters will come out to the polls to prove them right. Or wrong.
On the other hand, the President's current policy of refusing to send troops to Iraq is likely the most politically popular move to do, and as he is not seeking re-election anymore, has no reason to succumb to pressure to send troops. Of course, the only electoral group likely to oppose such a policy are the extreme Tea Party types, like the ones who are gloating over Cantor's primary defeat. This ideologically extreme group would not likely respond very well to any Republican who choose to take this stance.
I am sure there are those of us here who find the politicization of such serious issues distasteful. After all, most of us have denounced the Right's similar efforts on politicizing Benghazi, and we have also seen how this has negatively affected the Bowe Bergdahl community.
Of course, this is all the more reason to expose the general American electorate to the distasteful nature of the Republican Party's disingenuous attacks. While only politically invested activists like those of us who frequent Dailykos would read into the details behind the mainstream narratives of Benghazi and Bergdahl, I would wager that the majority of Americans by now understand just how deceived they were by the whole group who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place, and they would be ready to make their opinions known to anyone who proposes making another go around.
This is by no means an attempt to downplay the serious nature of the violence in Iraq, and importance of stability in the Middle East. While I do not buy into the official narrative that the violence in Iraq threatens the security of American interests in any meaningful way, in the end, there are innocent Iraqi citizens suffering amongst the violence. American intervention could alleviate some of this suffering. On the other hand, it could also add to that suffering. Who really believes military action, even in the form of air strikes and drones, would not be an additional threat to civilians?
The United States, as a modern civilization ostensibly dedicated to promoting peace and prosperity throughout the world, has an obligation to respond to the threat innocent Iraqi citizens face. However, with the risks so great, and with the lives of so many at stake, every effort must be taken to ensure the United States does not take any action that will negatively affect the realities of the situation, both in the short and in the long term.
If Republicans want to convince the public that their proposals meet these requirements, then by all means, they should make it crystal clear in their campaigns. And for their sakes as well as ours, I hope they can come up with rationales better than the fact that somehow, President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, is or was or will be wrong.
11:15 AM PT: Let's not forget that the majority of Americans are not like us here at Dailykos, who can easily pierce through the mainstream rhetorical facades, and neither are they like the extreme ideologues of the Tea Party, who are driven by blind devotion. I believe the majority of Americans want to find a way to peace in the Middle East, while endangering as few lives as possible, American or Arab. They want to do what is right, but need guidance as to what that really is. If we do not have at least that much faith in our fellow Americans, then what is it that we are even trying to accomplish here?