The mid-term US Congressional and Senate elections, only days away, will in some constituencies in the country hinge on the attitude of voters for or against the US administration’s policy on Iraq. The outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election in 2008 may, in turn, become a referendum by the American people on whether they consider the conduct of the war to have been a success or a failure.
Despite partisan differences over strategy and tactics to be used by the US in Iraq, however, there is a surprisingly broad consensus in Washington on what the reality on the ground is.
First, both administration officials and Congressional Democrats are agreed that the situation in Iraq has become serious to the point of critical. In spite of an increase in the US military presence in Baghdad, there has not been a significant lessening of Iraq’s nationwide plague of sectarian violence. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that Iraq is perilously close to an all-out civil war. Second, there is a consensus that the Iraqi government itself has shown neither the will nor the capability to reduce the level of violence or suppress the activities of the perpetrators of it.
The decisive question for the US is whether to continue the military support of a government that may be performing inadequately in achieving its basic needs for internal security. Exactly thirty-five years ago, the US faced a very similar dilemma in Vietnam when the president of the South, Ngo Dinh Diem, showed himself unwilling to cooperate with the US in his policy towards domestic insurgency. With US backing, South Vietnamese generals ousted Diem, and though the US disapproved of this action, they actually killed him.
That option certainly doesn’t seem to be available to the US in Iraq, and the South Vienamese precedent is in any case not a happy one. Diem’s replacement, Nguyen Van Thieu, eventually lost the war against the North Vietnamese anyway. At some point in the near future, however, the US government will have to make a basic decision: is it prepared to go on spending its soldiers’ lives and the nation’s treasury in support of a government that it helped install, but over whose actions today it has no real control?
Unlike the post-World War II societies of West Germany and Japan, the US has officially rejected the policy of “nation-building” in Iraq. When, however, you liberate a nation from a tyrannical ruler—Saddam Hussein—without being able to determine its post-dictatorship development, you have the worst of both worlds: neither the gratitude of the newly enfranchised citizenry nor the assurance of political stability in the region in the future.
Perilous decisions lie ahead for the US government. For those Americans inclined to pray for wisdom for their rulers, it would not be a bad time to start.
Dr. Aikman is a Senior Fellow of The Trinity Forum and writer in residence at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia. His website is www.davidaikman.com.
5 Responses (comments are closed) • Provocations, Leadership, Society, Tue 31 Oct 2006
If indeed the Republic is close to a decision point on Iraq, as Dr. Aikman suggests, my fervent hope is that people are voting with the right question in mind. The choice before the citizenry is not should we depose Saddam Hussein, nor is the question even as simple as were we right to invade Iraq? The question really is: acknowledging that we’re there, do we stay and finish the job we started? This is the question, and the consequences for answering in the negative are grave indeed.
In Iraq, despite the difficulties presented, we have an opportunity to continue to support a duly elected democratic government. We have an opportunity to honor our commitments, and create an ally in a place in the world that generally loathes the United States.
Few dispute the realities of life on the ground in Iraq, but any student of history should recognize the parallels between this conflict and others in our past. There was a large segment of the country that strongly opposed Union prosecution of the Civil War, and called for a withdrawal of Union forces and a halt to the violence. Had Lincoln heeded these calls, or had the Democrat opposition found a way to derail the war effort, how different a world might we live in today? Would a divided United States have had the ability to bail Europe out of two World Wars and face down the threat of Communism? In many respects, Iraq appears on the brink of civil war; yet, can we know that outside of the loss of human life, this remains a bad thing?
Vietnam also presents an interesting comparison. If we require an example of how poorly a war could be fought—against a back-drop of media-driven anti-war sentiment and a divided government at home—to galvanize the importance of the upcoming (and 2008) elections, there is no clearer example than Vietnam.
Indeed as Dr. Aikman notes, perilous decisions lie ahead. Let’s hope that decisions are made that multiply peril for our enemies, and as much as possible keep our citizens and soldiers out of harm’s way. Thanks to Dr. Aikman for another inspiring essay.
The US faces in the near term an almost impossible set of structural problems. We aren’t good at nation building, our principal agency in that effort is AID which is largely a client state agency that responds to Congressional earmarks. Also the Shiites have not held power and therefore lack the fundamental experience necessary. I believe the best we can do is to blend support for a reconciliation effort with military support that does not put our soldiers in the middle of sectarian strife. Prayer of course is always important and it should result in humility which can help guide a suitable new direction as the lack of humility drives the civil war now underway in parts of Iraq.
Thanks so much. Balanced and clear as usual. Only one thing missing: the silver bullet! Well, maybe that would be prayer, so it’s not missing after all. One of the criteria for just war theory is that the aftermath be provided for, which doesn’t appear to have been the case here. If it is still possible to make that happen, then we should try, though I am not sure it is primarily a military issue at this point.
Best Regards,
Bill
In the last presidential election, I heard much dissatisfaction from the local Christian left regarding right-wing single-issue voting. They seemed very mindful of kids voting mainly on only the war or on only abortion. Lazy statesmanship, if that was the cause, is a valid concern. Here is the thing though: I have a feeling the tables will be turned in 2008. I imagine the thought dancing around in people’s minds will be, “We cannot maintain a wartime consistency in the presidential office now, even if we wanted to, and since the Republicans are failing, well, let’s try the Democrats.” If that becomes a popular mindset, I wonder whether those same cautioning voices of 2004 will remember their words on other social and fiscal issues, or if they will become, practically, single-issue voters.
All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are running from, and to, and why.
James Thurber
on 2006 11 02
Whatever we might think of the decision to invade Iraq in the first place the choices facing the US are now crystal clear.
Does it beat a retreat in the face of mounting opposition within the US to the war or does it see through what it began?
I cannot see that it has any option but to see it through.
To desert Iraq before there is stability of government will be to consign it to a fate that may be worse than its former state under
Saddam.
Perhaps the US should never have invaded in the first place but now it is there it has to stay for the duration, for the sake of the Iraqi people.
It is the only moral thing to do.
Rev Paul Arnott
Melbourne
Australia.