The Debate for Iraq

No matter if one suggests the reason for the American led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was a means to disarm a tyrant of weapons of mass destruction, or part of the overall war on terrorism, or as a foreign policy strategy with the goal of making Iraq and the Middle East safe for democracy, the present situation in Iraq is a mixture of all three arguments, and many others, as well as an indicator to the confusion of the entirety. Iraq today is easily the result of numerous rationales, tactless planning, great sacrifices, enormous progress, missed opportunities, huge successes, and immense struggles for all involved-- all of which are just as debatable as the next.

It’s entirely possible to argue that Iraq is on the path to democracy while still admitting that things have not went as smoothly as believed in the beginning. We can convincingly argue that it is a wonderful achievement to depose of Saddam Hussein even as admitting the planning for his removal was ill fated and still not completely understood. We can argue that the WMD, which has never been located, in the wrong hands of a person who hates the US would be a horrible mistake for the future, while believing that the rush to war by the Bush administration mistakenly overlooked many items that have proven to be a horrible mistake for the future. Can’t all of the above be possible?

The Iraq debate is undoubtedly a paradox of logistics, planning and arguments. Iraq is essentially anyone’s argument or spin.

The British memo helps matters none. Some call the memo a fake, and whatever the impulse for either believing or discarding the memo does nothing for the troops on the ground. Don’t show me leaked memos to explain this war, because I can show you another leaked memo to prove it otherwise. Don’t show me European intelligence briefings about the motive for the Anglo-American invasion. I will show you centuries worth of European colonialism of the Middle East that created this modern world. I don’t want to hear utterances by Bush praising the policy, which no one can explain, while ignoring the reality. And I sure don’t care about reports by Amnesty International rebuking America for the treatment of prisoners and human rights when I have yet to see any report about the treatment of hostages and women by Muslim extremists or any reprove for their support of suicide bombers, which exemplifies the total decay of society.

Even the contradictions in my reasoning are abundant.

Bush’s most outspoken positive achievement of the Iraq debate is not how well the troops have performed, but the merriment of the January elections. The January elections took place not because Bush planned it so, but because American troops guaranteed it so. Every first words out of Bush’s mouth should be the infinite praising of the sacrifice and accomplishments our troops have achieved. Again, I don’t want to hear the constant patting on the back of Bush policy because none of it measures up to the undertakings of the American military.

Since the January elections almost 250 American soldiers have been killed, 80 in the month of May. Over 3,000 Iraqi civilians have been murdered in the streets since January, most from the absurd act of suicide bombings, over 700 in the month of May alone. Insurgent attacks are at an all time high with an average of 70 per day. And yet I’m not supposed to mention any of this-- because it’s viewed as overshadowing substantial long-term progress-- without mentioning that oil exports are actually up from this time last year, that fuel supplies almost doubled from last June, that telephone usage has more than doubled since this time last year, that internet subscribers have almost tripled since last June, that 65% of Iraqis now believe that their country is finally heading in the right direction- up from 50% last June, that more schools opened in May 2004 than April 2004, because all that is viewed as the progress.

The debate itself is as polar as the “with us or against” simple talk of Bush’s first term, because that attitude leaves absolutely no room for dissent on any matter. Conversely, the slightest disagreement with something that is Bush immediately ignites labels of anti-Americanism, “against this war,” anti-Bush and refusing to acknowledge the progress, while any optimistic views about the war are immediately argued as blind appeasement of a fascist-like president. It is with this that the debate begins and ends. And none of it does anything for the troops on the ground.

Somewhere in this large contradiction of a debate there must be room to argue for the importance of overthrowing Saddam merely because this post 9/11 world would not tolerate a tyrant like him, and the necessity and strategic importance at which American troops be present in the Middle East, and yet still disagree with the tactics, the rush to war and the lack of policy direction, all the while supporting the troops because this 21st century project along with all the burdens are squarely placed on them. It must be possible to argue that Bush and the politicians in charge of this war have not lived up to the troops and those who have so valiantly executed it.

So far, nothing of that substance appears visible in the current debate for Iraq.