Michael Ware: Don’t Pull Out Of Iraq
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War
The reporter who lambasted John McCain for his suggestion that Baghdad was safe enough to walk through, has come out strongly against any type of pullout.
Why? He feels it would hand Iraq over to al Qaeda.
UPDATE:
But Andrew Sullivan isn’t so sure…
So we should leave. Soon. Let the Shia and tribal leaders and the Kurds confront al Qaeda. It’s about time they did. And they have as good a reason as we do and far better knowledge of the enemy and the terrain. Until they own this war against Islamist terror, it won’t be won. And by continuing to stay, we postpone the day when they have to fight for their own country and their own religion â€â€? and win the war we cannot win for them.
It does follow that most muslims hate al Qaeda, but they hate them less than the US. We stay in there, we unnaturally delay the inevitable showdown between the extermists and the moderate muslim factions.
Makes sense to me.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 26th, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Justin – I agree, but I do warn: the interrogation tactics are going to get far more “creative” when we leave. The Iraqis won’t have to elect a leader, a leader will emerge in the form of a military strong man. He will be the guy that reigns down bloody slaughter on the militias until the only ones left work for him. This may entail limited genocidal rampages through selective neighborhoods.
Yes, our fastidious presence certainly does delay the Muslim way of doing things.
But what about that “real democracy” you waxed so passionately? You haven’t give up I hope.
http://donklephant.com/2007/04/22/torture-in-iraq/
April 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
It sounds like you don’t think the outcome of this showdown is relevant to American interests. Or is it just guaranteed in your mind that the “moderate muslim factions” will inevitably win? Who are these “moderate Muslim factions” anyway and why don’t they need our help?
April 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I really wish I could believe that our withdrawal would suddenly give the good guys in Iraq the will to defeat all the agents of chaos. But that seems like a pretty risky gambit. I would say the chances that everything turns out ok without us in Iraq is not nearly as likely as the chances that Iraq would descend into an anarchic tribal state perfect for terrorist camps. Or Iran could fill our void and stir up a greater regional conflict. Or the militant Islamists could take over because, as with Afghanistan and The Sudan, they provide the kind of heavy-handed stability people long for after years of chaos.
In any case, our withdrawal anytime soon is much more likely to end poorly for our national security interests. By leaving now, we could very likely create a situation that requires us to go back in sometime in the near future.
At this point, we’re left with bad options. The key is not to reach for the worst of those.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
We certainly did not listen to the wisdom of Edmund Burke, “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.” Unfortunately, it seems that liberty has brought Iraq into a Hobsian state with the only civilized regulator being the US military. When we leave it will be a bloodbath – beheadings, dead children and all the other gruesome imagery that comes with the “religion of peace.” If this reaction to liberty was predictable, it was *only* predictable through a truthful (and unPC) analysis of the nature of Islam in the Middle East. The U.S. is left with bad options, because the reactions to liberty is now highly predictable in Iraq, but the Iraqis ultimately chose their fate, not the U.S..