Truth and consequences
Posted 16 February 2007 at 10:06 pm
I was listening to NPR today, perhaps in an effort to anger myself with a touch of liberal propaganda. They were talking about the Iraq war (no surprise there), and since the particular program I was listening to focused in part on local events, they talked to someone who was protesting in downtown Cleveland about the war. The group she was with opposes the war in totality and wants our troops recalled immediately. Fair enough - I disagree vehemently with her, but she’s entitled to her opinion.
What I couldn’t abide was her rationalization for this opinion. She stated that she and her group have faith that the Iraqis would take up their own security and prevent themselves from descending into an unmitigated civil war.
In response, I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or cry.
Outright abandonment of Iraq at this point would result in the democratic regime collapsing soon after, eventually being replaced with the hardline totalitarian regime seen in Iran. In all likelihood, this would happen in the bloodiest way possible, as Iraqi Sunnis did what they could to prevent the Iran-sponsored Shi’ites from taking over. There is only one reason why this hasn’t happened yet: our continued presence in Iraq.
What confuses me is how a person could see the sectarian violence going on over there, complain about the toll it is taking on our troops, and demand our withdrawal from the region, but on the other hand pretend that the future in Iraq is so rosy that they can manage things without our assistance. If Iraq could stabilize on its own, there wouldn’t be the level of violence we see over there, our soldiers wouldn’t be getting killed, and nobody would be complaining in the first place!
If you want the US to withdraw from Iraq, that’s fine - but you have to be willing to accept the consequences of that choice instead of rationalizing away those consequences through self-denial. So, what’ll it be?