Like so much else with the Iraq War, the question of the most likely effects of an American withdrawal are colored by Vietnam. It's about time for the United States to get over the Vietnam War, since the Vietnamese seem to be over the American War, as they call it, but until we can do the same, let's study the logic employed by those who insist upon staying in Iraq.
"They'll follow us home", they say. This sentiment is extremely widespread, including among many who criticize the war with varying degrees of passion. It is taken by most as an article of faith that the Arabs are especially bloodthirsty, vengeful, and given to an emotional lust for revenge that stretches across generations. There is no small amount of truth to this, which is why we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.
What the debate must revolve around, however, is not the wishes of the enemy, but the intentions and capabilities of the enemy. In last week's Republican Debate, John McCain stood tall with a rare blend of moral authority and direct language on the issue of torture. Then he started talking about Vietnam.
First, he told Ron Paul that failing to invade Iraq would have been the equivalent of ignoring Hitler. Actually, failing to invade Iraq would have been the equivalent of ignoring Gunther Weisbadden. Who is Gunther Weisbadden? Exactly. Next, he informed Mr. Paul, who due to being the only sane man on the stage inevitably comes across as a lunatic, that the Americans "never lost a battle in Vietnam".
Aside from the fact that it is very hard to lose battles to an enemy with no airplanes, what was McCain getting at? In spite of himself, he was making the case that that war should never have been fought. If you win every battle and still lose the war, that means the battles were irrelevant, does it not? Of course it does.
It was public opinion that lost the Vietnam War, McCain informed us. The audience largely cheered this tired old herring, which used to be red but is now just a pathetic, faded pink. Yes, the audience cheered, as if to say, "you're right John, it was our fault! that fucking 1st amendment! if only the hippies had given you guys another ten years, another 2 million dead Asians, we would have had that thing won!"
To put it bluntly: if you want to live in a country where the government is not constrained by its citizens when it wages a decade-long illegal war on their behalf and sacrifices their children by the tens of thousands on the altar of proven lies and moral bankruptcy, then fuck you. Move to North Korea.
At the end of McCain's "free speech fucked us" rant, he told us of the difference between the enemy in Vietnam and the enemy in Iraq: "The Vietnamese didn't want to follow us home". Okay. Well, since the Vietnamese never harbored any intention of harming the United States, doesn't that mean the Vietnam War was unnecessary? Careful, Senator.
Anyhow, to parse this proposition: first of all, it seems safe to say that countless of thousands of Vietnamese harbored a blood grudge against the United States, and there is no reason to think that, if they could have, a great many of them would not have sought to exercise revenge for their dead countrymen and family members. But there was more important work to do. Like rebuild their incinerated country. Iraq will be much the same.
When people say "They'll follow us home", who is they? They is al-Qaeda and assorted Salafist wackjobs would actually would come here aiming to kill indiscriminately. Thankfully, "they" is not the Iraqi people at large; it is a small and shrinking element of the insurgency. That being said, let's look at this logically.
To say that the hardcore terrorists would "follow us home" implies that they are not coming here right now because American soldiers are in Iraq. That, in turn, implies that terrorists would rather try to kill the best-armed and best-trained Americans on earth, taking a good many Muslims with them, than try to kill defenseless civilians in the belly of the Great Satan itself.
The implication is that thousands of hardened, competent, and motivated terrorists have decided to go to Iraq instead of America, but that if Americans weren't in Iraq, they would come to America. That makes no sense. Why would a jihadi opt to face an American tank if he had the capability of blowing up an Ameircan high-rise? They're suicidal, yes, but they are also motivated to kill thousands of Americans. In Iraq, that takes 5 years. In America, that takes 5 mintues.
Let me put it this way: how is having Americans in Baghdad preventing a terrorist from flying from Karachi to New York? From Casablance to Los Angeles? From Dubai to Chicago?
We are not fighting in Iraq because we have realistically assessed the premise that "they'll follow us home"; it seems clear to me that American armies in Baghdad are totally inconsequential to the logistical feasibility of terrorists coming to America. All American armies in Baghdad are doing is to swell the ranks of those who would come to America if they could.
So why are we still there? We're there because there is resistance there. And herein lies the second fallacy. This fallacy holds that anyone who would resist the American military overseas is an enemy of America who must be crushed where he lives so that he can not "follow us home". This is the bull refusing to leave the China shop until there is no glass on the floor.
"The notion that wars are fought not to protect real national interests but to avenge the suffering of soldiers is another of those problematic syllogistic formulas that politicians have used for decades to snow the public into military action. Just because we can find enemies overseas who are willing to deal harshly with our soldiers doesn't mean we should have been looking for them in the first place, or that it's right to keep letting them have that pleasure."
No comments:
Post a Comment