Iraq for Iraqis
America's long-term goal in Iraq is to help the people there build a free, stable, democratic nation where the citizens rule; the law is fair, enforced, and respected; and the wealth of the land is for any Iraqis who want to work for it.
At least, that ought to be our goal.
The President usually talks about Iraq in such terms. But some supporters of the Bush administration's foreign policy, including some in positions of power, have at times suggested a more cynical explanation of what we're doing in Iraq, which boils down to, "better to fight Islamist terrorists there than here."
L. Paul Bremer, for instance, has stated that it is "better to fight it here [i.e. Iraq] than to fight it somewhere else, like the United States." Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez told reporters Iraq would become a "terrorist magnet," and "this is exactly where we want to fight them; we want to fight them here, we prepared for them. And this will prevent the American people from having to go through other attacks back in the United States."
Such talk may be pragmatic -- it will certainly appeal to cold-eyed realists among the voting public, who roll their eyes at the alleged neo-con fantasy of spreading democracy in the Middle East -- but these are not our better angels speaking. Such a policy would be hideously counter-productive to America's stated design of a free Iraq. Would we really want to go down in history as the nation that held out the promise of liberty to Iraqis while frankly intending to turn their country into a romper room for terrorists?
This isn't even a case where the noble motive and the cynical one can co-exist. The one directly undermines the other. If the government's goal is to make Iraq a permanent shooting gallery, why am I sending my money to aid organizations that are helping average Iraqis set up small businesses? Why is my friend Katrina and her company and thousands of other people like them at work up and down the Tigris rebuilding the infrastructure and risking their lives, if we'll smash up the place again fighting terrorists?
Take the fight to the Islamists, yes. But remember: Iraq is our baby now. It's an essential part of what our nation and our military are committed to protecting.
U.S. Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus, one of the men of vision to emerge from the battlefield in this war, has described the task of building a democratic Iraq while under attack as "like trying to repair an aircraft while it's in flight but also while it's being shot at." So why bother if you intend to just crash the thing in the end?
At least, that ought to be our goal.
The President usually talks about Iraq in such terms. But some supporters of the Bush administration's foreign policy, including some in positions of power, have at times suggested a more cynical explanation of what we're doing in Iraq, which boils down to, "better to fight Islamist terrorists there than here."
L. Paul Bremer, for instance, has stated that it is "better to fight it here [i.e. Iraq] than to fight it somewhere else, like the United States." Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez told reporters Iraq would become a "terrorist magnet," and "this is exactly where we want to fight them; we want to fight them here, we prepared for them. And this will prevent the American people from having to go through other attacks back in the United States."
Such talk may be pragmatic -- it will certainly appeal to cold-eyed realists among the voting public, who roll their eyes at the alleged neo-con fantasy of spreading democracy in the Middle East -- but these are not our better angels speaking. Such a policy would be hideously counter-productive to America's stated design of a free Iraq. Would we really want to go down in history as the nation that held out the promise of liberty to Iraqis while frankly intending to turn their country into a romper room for terrorists?
This isn't even a case where the noble motive and the cynical one can co-exist. The one directly undermines the other. If the government's goal is to make Iraq a permanent shooting gallery, why am I sending my money to aid organizations that are helping average Iraqis set up small businesses? Why is my friend Katrina and her company and thousands of other people like them at work up and down the Tigris rebuilding the infrastructure and risking their lives, if we'll smash up the place again fighting terrorists?
Take the fight to the Islamists, yes. But remember: Iraq is our baby now. It's an essential part of what our nation and our military are committed to protecting.
U.S. Lieut. Gen. David Petraeus, one of the men of vision to emerge from the battlefield in this war, has described the task of building a democratic Iraq while under attack as "like trying to repair an aircraft while it's in flight but also while it's being shot at." So why bother if you intend to just crash the thing in the end?
