A solution for Iraq

Posted by admin on Feb 20, 2007 in Volume 14 Issue 1 | 0 comments

Considering the current chaos in Iraq, it is hard to understand why anyone would have supported the invasion in 2003, if ever. Still, when the United States Congress voted on George W. Bush’s bill to go to war in February 2003, the vast majority of the nation was behind him. Even in my Mennonite high school, the overwhelming opinion of the student body (myself included) was rather pro-war. How could we have been so foolish?

Today, the United States is most certainly in Iraq, along with many of our friends and relatives. While Jean Chrétien famously declared that Canada was not a member of the “Coalition of the Willing,” the Canadians, as members of Western society, are still involved.

The United States government’s goal in Iraq is to preserve U.S. interests by any means possible. To that end, perhaps this policy is best served by a Nixon-like approach of “peace with honour.” While it is hard to argue for the excesses that some troops have committed in Iraq, war atrocities are as old as war itself, and, therefore, one should expect no more or less from a soldier of today than one would have expected of a German or American soldier in World War II.

The honour of the Iraqi nation has been left intact, which, while in peacetime is desirable; but for an occupied country, it is a recipe for disaster. While complete humiliation is perhaps not necessary, a more forceful approach to the Iraqis would probably generate more respect for the law. The lawlessness of the Iraqi regime is a striking example of how things are out of control in the region as a whole.

Bush has a good argument for the “Surge” strategy, and his appointment of the brilliant General Petraus will surely benefit the nation of Iraq, but this strategy will not win the hearts and minds of the people in the end. Many have argued that Iraqi peace cannot be achieved without the installment of a new autocratic regime. However, this would certainly not bode well for the diversity of Iraq, as any autocratic regime would continue to be Shiite-dominated and, therefore, govern against the wishes of the minorities in the region.

Only when the vast majority of the Iraqi public fully support the peaceful democratic process can peace be achieved in Iraq. Seeing that this is not likely to occur in the near future, it is in the United States’ best interest to slowly disengage itself from the region, and eventually withdraw all troops. In Iraq, the U.S. has few interests that cannot be fulfilled elsewhere. While it will make its ally Israel slightly uncomfortable, the power vacuum will be filled. However, the misconceptions among the U.S. public on the situation in the region also needs to be corrected before the Bush administration can move forward significantly.

The United States has put itself in a very nasty situation, and very few would now argue that it should stay in Iraq for the long term. To continue to be respected as a nation, the U.S. has to retain the appearance of strength – something it is currently failing at in Iraq.