Will someone please show Congress, General David Petraeus and Republican John McCain the 2002 Hollywood hit "The Gangs of New York". The movie, set in New York's slums during the Civil War, depicts today's Iraq: Economic chaos, tribal wars, political corruption, psychotic leaders and the slaughter of innocents.
Mark Twain wrote that "history does not repeat itself but it rhymes". And just as it took Americans decades to clean up New York, the Wild West and Deep South it will take decades to clean up Iraq. Worse yet, Iraq is even more backward than was 19th century America.
Even so, McCain, McBush and his General Petraeus, the four-star in charge of Iraq, want more money, more troops and more time.
But the Iraq war, even if one believes the "surge" of troops has led to limited success, has been foolish and the notion of democratization may be even more foolish, no matter how noble the goal. Look at history's examples.
Occupied West Germany and Japan transformed quickly but only after millions died, their countries were flattened and their leaders annihilated. Vietnam never made the transition and Russia still has a long way to go. Iraq, Afghanistan and others in the region, may never make it or, at least, not make it in our lifetimes.
Iraq has other issues. Malevolent neighbors export men and armaments to keep it unstable and embarrass Washington. These and other unique conditions mean that staying the course is not really an option, nor should the Iraq occupation be confused with American patriotism or pride. Iraq must get its act together. This is not a nation but a family feud in a region roiling with religious and boundary blood feuds. Others must get involved. The Iraqis have to pull it off or divide into several countries.
Senator McCain justifies "staying the course" and claims that last year's troop build up has created a situation that is "something approaching normal". "We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," McCain said. His "normal" is hardly acceptable. His "success" is years away. Right now, Iraq is under martial law. The economy is non-existent. Uneasy truces between warlords and religious factions are only glued together with American money and force. The Green Zone has been penetrated with violence despite the "surge". Iraq's central government is, by most accounts, dysfunctional.
These facts must be drummed into the public record. So must the ramifications of another statement made by McCain recently: "My friends, if we left, they [al Qaeda] wouldn't be establishing a base. They'd be taking a country and I'm not going to allow that to happen."
So Democrats and the public must press McCain aggressively on these points:
IF troop withdrawal means Iraq will be overrun by terrorists, then McCain is saying that American soldiers can never leave Iraq. If so, why hasn't he articulated this opinion clearly to the public, that we can never leave?
IF he did not quite mean that and progress is being made, why can't troops now be withdrawn gradually?
WHAT are neighbors and allies going to do to keep peace in the region?
WHY can't Iraq, after exit, be contained just like Saddam Hussein and other regimes have been?
WHY does McCain believe that doing the same thing will yield a different result?
- "Iraq is even more backward than was 19th century America"
- "the notion of democratization may be even more foolish, no matter how noble the goal"
- "Malevolent neighbors export men and armaments to keep it unstable and embarrass Washington"
simply fuels the jingoistic paternalism that perpetuates this misadventure.
The Middle East is where empires go to die, usually because of some Western notion that the East (where there were flourishing libraries when Europeans wore animal skins and huddled in shabby huts) needs saving. (The real reason. of course, is resources -- spices or oil.) To unleash chaos, then call a country backward is insulting. To describe a neighboring country acting in its own self-interests as malevolent is Cheney-esque -- another swing of the bat at the hornets' nest. And to romanticize "democracy" -- even if just to call it foolish with a condescending sigh -- is to overlook that the noblest goal in Iraq today is to provide dependable electricity (which existed before we tore that country apart because of a lie.)
And you did it very well, indeed.
Al Qaeda appears to be exclusively Sunni Muslim, and the divide between the Sunni and Shia sects appears to be unbridgeable. Given that 60% the population of Iraq chooses to practice the Shiite flavor of the Moslem religion, and the Shiites are now also firmly in control of pretty much every aspect of that country, Al Qaeda would need to pull off the greatest come from behind victory in the history of the planet to present the threat that Sen. McCain says he fears.
Is the man a fool or a liar?
My money is on both. And it's also on a Democratic landslide in November. Or at least it would be if I could find anyone stupid enough to take the other side even up.
I might get there, but first it reminds me of the 1990's: all of that in Somalia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechyna, N. Korea, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, etc.
We may not like it, but our invasion and the decisions we made early in our occupation have simply made some outcomes unlikely and some impossible, no matter how many boots we put on the ground, how we parse our political rhetoric, or what entreaties we make to regional powers. "Stable democracy?" Not going to happen. "American partner in the GWOT?" Forget it.
Time to recognize that what is possible has passed beyond our ability to influence. Time to take our medicine.
larry lynch