It has long been my contention that the most dreadful prospect we face in Iraq would be the morphing of political conflict in Iraq to sectarian conflict, i.e., Sunni vs Shia. Recent events in Iraq certainly seem to underscore this ghastly prospect.
This is a thorny dilemma. On the one hand, according to the “freedom/democracy” theme the Bushiviks are intent on claiming as thier sole motive for initiating this shitstorm, we should, by all rights, be solidly on the side of the Shia. They are, in truth, the demographic majority. According to the priciples we claim to support, a federalized Iraq not only can be organized to favor the Shia majority, it should be. The principle of “majority rules” can easily be used as a justification for the rawest of oppression.
Who’s side, then, are we on? Whose side should we be on? Currently, we are actively suppressing a Sunni “insurgency” on behalf of the government of Iraq. A case can be made that we are fighting their fight for them, spending our blood and treasure on their behalf. We are being used, to put it bluntly.
We are told that a sectarian civil war will result from a precipitous, “cut and run” approach to the insurgency. That we are obligated to stand and fight until the governance of Iraq can carry the struggle on its own.
I contend that said struggle has already begun, and we are in the horrid position of having chosen a side in a conflict that can only get worse. Our enemies hate us the more for it, our allies are simply using our blood and treasure to substitute for their own, it is a realpolitik that Bismarck and Kissinger would wholly admire.
I was long an advocate of the “we broke it, we are obliged to fix it.” I have abandoned this position, with grave reluctance. I no longer believe it possible. An honorable exit from a dishonorable military adventure would be making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, a blood-soaked sows ear. Increasingly, our blood, and the blood of the innocent.
If we insist on protecting the Sunni, the Shia majority has every legal right, according to the principles we offer mealy-mouthed adherence, to order us off thier territory. We have even stated such as our goal, that we will fight their fight for them until we are no longer needed, as they “stand up”, we “stand down”.
I find myself advocating a dreadful position, having no better alternative. We should withdraw ourselves as immediatly as possible. We should then focus on applying what meager influence we have to ameliorate and shorten the current and ensuing conflict, recognizing our limitations.
There is nothing palatable about this. But if the honorable course is impossible, the choice becomes which dishonorable alternative is the least ghastly. Innocents are dying, and will die. The Sunni, almost certainly, cannot prevail.
Perhaps, indeed, our presence currently prevents a wider conflict, it forstalls direct intervention by other ME states into the conflict. On the other hand, perhaps that direct intervention might be the least horrid alternative, leading to a negotiated settlement sooner rather than later. A short, nasty war rather than a long, drawn out agony.
There are no good alternatives. I recognize, with a heavy heart, that I am proferring a horror. There is no joy in it, there is only the solemn recognition of fact, and a fierce anger that any of our best and brightest be used as food for a monster.
With grave reluctance: Out Now!