Fight or Flight?

I really didn’t want to talk about Iraq since there are several thousand blogs talking about that topic, but there’s been a lot of partisan sniping flying around with people being called unpatriotic, chicken hawks, warmongers, Nazis, etc., and those are the polite words. I rose above this name calling when I was about 9 and it’s dispiriting to the troops with their lives on the line to hear this. When debate is framed around schoolyard insults, it’s no wonder people tune into Entertainment Tonight for some erudite discussions.

It’s a shame because buried beneath the finger pointing is a good general debate about what should happen next. I’ve previously stated here that I strongly supported the war in Iraq and still do because our goals there are so important to the Middle East and spreading democracy is the best way to end terrorism. But I also understand why so many people in and out of Congress think it’s time to bring the troops home, because Iraq has degenerated into a completely avoidable quagmire that could have been prevented with a Marshall-type plan. That nobody in the administration anticipated the anarchy that would arise if Iraq fell symbolizes the incompetence of so many at the highest levels of our government. The current debate demonstrates democracy in action – talk that would get many of the war’s dissenters beaten or murdered under Saddam Hussein and many Arab governments.

The other irony about our discussion is that every side is almost correct in their assertions. Anti-war demonstrators are correct in stating our presence is helping to fuel the insurgency, that prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib have undermined the moral mission of ousting a dictator and the reasons for going to war look at best deceptive and at worst dishonest. Pro-war demonstrators are correct in stating U.S. troops are all that is keeping Iraq from becoming a full-blown civil war of Yugoslavian proportions, Iraq has undergone two successful elections and now has a civilian government and measuring success should be done not by how quickly we get out, but by how quickly we can help build a functional Iraq.

It’s tempting to throw in the towel when terrorists murder innocent Iraqis and U.S. troops alike because everyone to Bush and Rumsfeld on down bungled the whole post-war rebuilding process so badly. But as the sign in the stores say, “You Break It, You Bought It.” We broke Iraq and it is now our job to fix it. That is why, with all due sympathy and respect to the get-out-now-and- bring-them-home crowd, it is important to stay until the job is done and Iraq can defend itself. This thought has been correctly discussed by the more even-tempered and open-minded Republicans, including John McCain and Condoleeza Rice, and by most of the generals and soldiers who are actually in Iraq and know best.

As a PR flack, I think it’s unconscionable that the President and the Pentagon are not giving more information on where things are going well in Iraq and where they are not going well. They’re spending too much time on partisan name-calling and labeling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic and cowardly. The President is not losing his popularity battle in Iraq – he is losing it here at home because he has not sold Iraq to the American people, let alone to foreign nations. Where are the war heroes we can cheer on? Where are the visits to injured soldiers, which Rep. Murtha does every week? Why do we need to seek out obscure blogs and third-party web sites to find any trace of progress?

I’ll post some further ideas on that last paragraph soon.


An Opposing View from a Columnist I Greatly Respect