I do not want to succumb to defeatism any more than I want to engage in denialism. There is a moral responsibility to cope with the chaos we have wrought and the nightmare our departure could mean; but there is also a moral responsibility to the American people not to sacrifice their young and squander what's left of their treasury on a fool's errand. No path is morally pure. And neither offers a clear path to security.Reading the New York Times article he links to, it is amazing to realize just how much progress has occurred there since 2006 when all hope seemed lost. Dexter Filkins contrasts the vast differences between then and now in the neighborhoods he visits. He is astounded: stores have re-opened, streets re-paved, women walk freely (in jeans!), violence is down by as much as 90 percent! At the same time he quickly points out how fragile the progress still is, and how no one in Iraq is prepared to predict the future: reconciliation between Sunni groups and the government hasn't happened, the place of the Kurds has not been figured out, and he points out that the mounting pile of oil profits poses a great reason for competing groups to potentially re-start the fighting.
Reading of all this progress actually makes a big part of me want to stay in Iraq to clean up the mess we've made and allow the Iraqi's a shot at a decent life that we took away from them. But, this path is clearly dangerous: How long, exactly, will a lasting peace take? Staying there for another ten years, for example, doesn't seem sensible to me -- there is the loss of our soldier's lives, tying up military resources that will be needed elsewhere, and extending Muslim resentment towards us. As Andrew points out, neither path is remotely clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment