Patriotism and Peace
"Peace is Patriotic" is one of the anti-war mantras. So is "Support the Troops; Bring Them Home Now." I'm still trying to puzzle this out.
Assume, dear reader, that your overpowering urge in the world is "get America out of Iraq." This is what you really wish to see. Why? Well, that's your business, but the usual reason professed is "peace."
The notion that the only reason Iraq is a violent place is because Americans are there is the kind of wish-thinking that I associate with the kind of "anti-war activist" who only thinks about world affairs after a few long tugs on the ol' bong and a spin through the first two "Crosby, Stills, Nash (and Young)" albums. But some thinking anti-Bush types do seem to take it seriously. Gregory Djerejian takes the time to patiently answer this argument.
The gist of it includes the points that Iraq, a fractious but resource-rich society surrounded by predatory enemies, needs time to build itself up and stand on its own. And only the U.S. occupation can give it that breathing room, as the Allied occupation did for West Germany in the late 1940s and early '50s.
The other flaw in the argument is that it presumes the insurgents have the same goal as the peace activists -- to get the Americans out of Iraq and then live in peace and harmony with the world. An insurgent victory -- the necessary flip-side of a quick American departure -- would galvanize jihadism the way the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did. Casting the future is a difficult business but I'd bet a couple of paychecks that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi riding triumphantly out of the desert into Baghdad will not usher in a new era of world peace and stability.
As someone once said, "America 'occupies' Iraq like a cast 'occupies' a broken leg." The proponents of the "bring the troops home and peace will reign" idea are perhaps deliberately not thinking about this because it doesn't suit them to do so. It confronts them with the maddening possibility that, though the war may still have been unjustified and unnecessary (as they deem it), and the occupation bungled, the best thing to do now, after all that, is to keep doing what's being done, more or less. That's not a very satisfactory answer for those folks, I imagine.
But let that pass. "Bring the troops home now" is your cry, and you really mean it as the best next step.
You want to see this happen right away. But since you are not the commander in chief, you cannot make this happen right away. So you have two alternatives. You can stamp your feet and cry, or you can settle for the next-best option of getting America out of Iraq as soon as possible.
How do you do that? You either believe America wishes to remain an occupying force in Iraq forever, or you understand that it has certain goals there that, once met, will meet the conditions for America's withdrawal from the country.
The path forks before this, actually. If you believe Bush & Co. are a pack of criminal liars who will stop at nothing and waste no amount of other people's lives and treasure to pursue their agenda of world domination and corporate enrichment, then the only way to fight them is full-on, taking any ally who shares your enmity with them. It doesn't matter if Bush sets conditions or not; whenever he talks, he lies.
Frankly, a lot of the people I listen to and read on the anti-war left at least claim to be assured of all that. They just haven't somehow followed their conviction to any sort of logical conclusion. But the conclusion it leads to, I'm afraid, is not consistent with "peace" or with "supporting the troops," at least insofar as they are loyal to the military of which Bush is commander in chief.
If you believe America intends to occupy Iraq forever, and you are bound and determined to see that not happen, is there any alternative but to work toward American defeat in Iraq? The alternative is to accept failure of your purpose. Outright defeat for the American military, if the American people are behind it, is a highly unlikely outcome right now. But a war opponent could lend his or her effort to making the cost of continuing the present U.S. course so steep and bloody that it breaks the national will and forces social unrest and political turmoil a la 1968.
But what if you believe the U.S. will leave Iraq under certain conditions not involving utter military catastrophe befalling U.S. forces?
Bush and Co. don't make this easy. They are a singularly inarticulate and off-key administration. They do well to avoid withdrawal timetables, but they could help themselves by having, and repeating, and sticking to, a coherent brief set of points for success in Iraq. Yet even through the rhetorical haze it is possible to read the administration and discover its rough conditions for success in Iraq, which would be followed by U.S. withdrawal.
A stable, democratic government. A permanent end to the insurgency, preferably by defeat, but perhaps by negotiation. An Iraq strong and capable enough to defend itself from outside interference, and capable of policing its own territory to prevent terrorists from using it as a training and staging ground.
This is a good deal less than many of us who supported this venture had hoped for from it, by the way. And there are signs that the administration is eager to end this venture sooner, rather than later, and would be willing to cut a few corners and fudge some of the fine print on its conditions of acceptable withdrawal.
So what do you do? You bend your time and energy to seeing that Iraq reaches as soon as possible the state where the Americans will leave willingly. You support the reconstruction of Iraq and the empowerment of the Iraqis. You willingly contribute to the effort of rebuilding, either through private donations or personal effort.
How many people who shout "bring the troops home now" are doing that?
Ah, but this simplistic logical walk through the problem ignores so much that is important to the "peace" activist. The Bushies must not feel they have succeeded! They must be punished, and must be held up to the world as a failure, to prevent future administrations from following the siren song of the neo-cons! Americans who support the military overthrow of a nation that has not attacked us in war must be taught by example the error of their ways and made to repent it!
But now we're not talking about peace anymore, are we? We're not talking about supporting troops. Peace and the troops are peripheral to the purpose. Now the language becomes rather similar to the way Eisenhower talked about the Germans in 1946.
Assume, dear reader, that your overpowering urge in the world is "get America out of Iraq." This is what you really wish to see. Why? Well, that's your business, but the usual reason professed is "peace."
The notion that the only reason Iraq is a violent place is because Americans are there is the kind of wish-thinking that I associate with the kind of "anti-war activist" who only thinks about world affairs after a few long tugs on the ol' bong and a spin through the first two "Crosby, Stills, Nash (and Young)" albums. But some thinking anti-Bush types do seem to take it seriously. Gregory Djerejian takes the time to patiently answer this argument.
The gist of it includes the points that Iraq, a fractious but resource-rich society surrounded by predatory enemies, needs time to build itself up and stand on its own. And only the U.S. occupation can give it that breathing room, as the Allied occupation did for West Germany in the late 1940s and early '50s.
Pull out U.S. forces in a hasty phased withdrawal and kiss a national Iraqi Army good-bye, and with it likely too the prospects, however dim they may be (of which more below), of an ultimately successful Iraq project.
The other flaw in the argument is that it presumes the insurgents have the same goal as the peace activists -- to get the Americans out of Iraq and then live in peace and harmony with the world. An insurgent victory -- the necessary flip-side of a quick American departure -- would galvanize jihadism the way the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did. Casting the future is a difficult business but I'd bet a couple of paychecks that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi riding triumphantly out of the desert into Baghdad will not usher in a new era of world peace and stability.
As someone once said, "America 'occupies' Iraq like a cast 'occupies' a broken leg." The proponents of the "bring the troops home and peace will reign" idea are perhaps deliberately not thinking about this because it doesn't suit them to do so. It confronts them with the maddening possibility that, though the war may still have been unjustified and unnecessary (as they deem it), and the occupation bungled, the best thing to do now, after all that, is to keep doing what's being done, more or less. That's not a very satisfactory answer for those folks, I imagine.
But let that pass. "Bring the troops home now" is your cry, and you really mean it as the best next step.
You want to see this happen right away. But since you are not the commander in chief, you cannot make this happen right away. So you have two alternatives. You can stamp your feet and cry, or you can settle for the next-best option of getting America out of Iraq as soon as possible.
How do you do that? You either believe America wishes to remain an occupying force in Iraq forever, or you understand that it has certain goals there that, once met, will meet the conditions for America's withdrawal from the country.
The path forks before this, actually. If you believe Bush & Co. are a pack of criminal liars who will stop at nothing and waste no amount of other people's lives and treasure to pursue their agenda of world domination and corporate enrichment, then the only way to fight them is full-on, taking any ally who shares your enmity with them. It doesn't matter if Bush sets conditions or not; whenever he talks, he lies.
Frankly, a lot of the people I listen to and read on the anti-war left at least claim to be assured of all that. They just haven't somehow followed their conviction to any sort of logical conclusion. But the conclusion it leads to, I'm afraid, is not consistent with "peace" or with "supporting the troops," at least insofar as they are loyal to the military of which Bush is commander in chief.
If you believe America intends to occupy Iraq forever, and you are bound and determined to see that not happen, is there any alternative but to work toward American defeat in Iraq? The alternative is to accept failure of your purpose. Outright defeat for the American military, if the American people are behind it, is a highly unlikely outcome right now. But a war opponent could lend his or her effort to making the cost of continuing the present U.S. course so steep and bloody that it breaks the national will and forces social unrest and political turmoil a la 1968.
But what if you believe the U.S. will leave Iraq under certain conditions not involving utter military catastrophe befalling U.S. forces?
Bush and Co. don't make this easy. They are a singularly inarticulate and off-key administration. They do well to avoid withdrawal timetables, but they could help themselves by having, and repeating, and sticking to, a coherent brief set of points for success in Iraq. Yet even through the rhetorical haze it is possible to read the administration and discover its rough conditions for success in Iraq, which would be followed by U.S. withdrawal.
A stable, democratic government. A permanent end to the insurgency, preferably by defeat, but perhaps by negotiation. An Iraq strong and capable enough to defend itself from outside interference, and capable of policing its own territory to prevent terrorists from using it as a training and staging ground.
This is a good deal less than many of us who supported this venture had hoped for from it, by the way. And there are signs that the administration is eager to end this venture sooner, rather than later, and would be willing to cut a few corners and fudge some of the fine print on its conditions of acceptable withdrawal.
So what do you do? You bend your time and energy to seeing that Iraq reaches as soon as possible the state where the Americans will leave willingly. You support the reconstruction of Iraq and the empowerment of the Iraqis. You willingly contribute to the effort of rebuilding, either through private donations or personal effort.
How many people who shout "bring the troops home now" are doing that?
Ah, but this simplistic logical walk through the problem ignores so much that is important to the "peace" activist. The Bushies must not feel they have succeeded! They must be punished, and must be held up to the world as a failure, to prevent future administrations from following the siren song of the neo-cons! Americans who support the military overthrow of a nation that has not attacked us in war must be taught by example the error of their ways and made to repent it!
But now we're not talking about peace anymore, are we? We're not talking about supporting troops. Peace and the troops are peripheral to the purpose. Now the language becomes rather similar to the way Eisenhower talked about the Germans in 1946.
