This post is in response to a post on my cousin Kristian's blog, Shocked and Awed. Read the post in question, along with comments here. For whatever reason, I'm having a hard time posting a comment on his blog, so I've decided to share my comment here, with all of you. Yes, it's political and yes, there's some harsh things in there, but that's the way I see it.
So, I just read the post from the other day, "Why a liberal can't vote Democrat." I just want to point out something: if you compare the casualty figures from Iraq to the casualty figures from Vietnam (something we're NEVER EVER supposed to do), you may notice a similarity.
In 10 years in Vietnam (1964-1975), approximately 1.5 million North Vietnamese died. In that same time, 58,226 American soldiers were listed as KIA or MIA, according to this website. In four years in Iraq, 3,162 Americans were KIA, and up to 655,000 Iraqi's (civilian and military) have been killed. That's about 207 Iraqis for every one American. Extrapolate those numbers to 10 years and you find that 7,905 Americans will have died to over 1.6 million Iraqis.
My point here is this: we killed 25 Vietnamese for every American that died in Vietnam, yet they still had the strength and the will to fight us. And they still turned to civil war as soon as the US left. In Iraq, we're killing anywhere from 17:1 (some estimates are as low as 55,000 Iraqis dead) to over 10 times that much, and they're still fighting. We can "stay the course" for 10, 15, or 20 years, the result will be the same. As it was for the British, and the Ottomans before them.
These people do not want Democracy, at least, not the secular democracy we're trying to force down their throats. Until the small minded religious views are sorted out, this part of the world will be nothing but a war zone, hostile to free thought and expression. Islam in this war is just a replacement for Communism, and as soon as the US leaves Iraq, it will devolve into sectarian violence (worse than it already has) and chaos, with local war lords controlling most of the country. There is nothing to prevent this, because the only people that can stop it are the Iraqis, and they're too busy arguing about something that happened 1300 years ago to worry about tomorrow. The longer Americans stay in this situation, the more of them will die. And, though it may make me a bad person to say it, they'll die for nothing. Because no one will be freed. No one will be saved.
Are the Iraqi's better off without Saddam? Only the Iraqis can answer that. Will 4,000 more American lives prevent the genocide that will come when the US leaves? Doubtful. I don't know if you're a betting man, but it seems to me that the safe bet is to leave, and try to contain the violence to Iraq. Pull US forces out of Baghdad and to the borders. Lock down Iraqi airspace. Keep the Iranians and Jordanians and Syrians out. Step out of the line of fire and let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves. Then maybe, MAYBE, there will be a chance for peace in Iraq. But no revolution of this kind (that would be religious, not political) can be achieved without blood. It just won't happen.
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
John Adams (1735 - 1826)
1 comment:
In this case, I think that my position can best be summed up with the old expression, "You broke it, you bought it." You see, this war stopped being about American soldiers the day the Saddam statue was pulled to the ground. At this point you can approach the war from several perspectives. You could take the moralistic approach (as I tend to do) and say that the war is about minimizing the suffering of the Iraqi people and rebuilding the state. I mean, that was the point of the invasion, right? Or at least it became the point after the original point didn't pan-out. So, if that was the point, then you have to assume that you're in there for the long-haul. It wasn't long ago that everyone talked about building democratic institutions and civil society. But doing so requires time.
On the other hand, you could look at it from the perspective of American security. A weakened Iraq equals a strengthened Iran and Iran is (and always was) a much greater risk to American security than Iraq. Not because Iran would attack the US per se. Rather, because a strengthened Iran would completely upset the regional balance of power, inevitably resulting in further wars in the Middle East, threaten energy supplies, and embolden terrorists.
Preventing either of those outcomes, in my opinion, is well worth the lives of American soldiers. If you ask me, the core of the problem is that Americans like war because they always win. It makes for good discussion at the water cooler and gives them a reason to read the paper. But their idea of a war is something along the lines of Panama. A fight against a vastly inferior and disorganized force that will capitulate in a couple of days. That's exactly what America thought would happen in Iraq. But it didn't. The Iraqis fought back and they fought well. Now Americans are starting to see what war is like from the other side--and they don't like it. Surprise, surprise.
Thanks for the great post. Keep more coming. My blog is fairly new, but I'm trying to keep it updated regularly.
Post a Comment