Should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq?
As a New Age Democrat, I have a very different perspective on the Iraq War compared to most other people. I recognize the fundamental roots of the conflict. I call it The Ancient World vs. The Modern World. Even though the war in Iraq is separate from the conflict with Al Qeada, the roots are the same. The New Age, after all, is the importance of technology in providing information to individuals via the Internet, cell phones, email, online video, and personal digital assistants. These tools give individuals the same powers that the state used to have exclusively to gather information about other citizens. As a result, in the Modern World, the individual is the most important component. A democrat recognizes this, arguing that the best political systems are those that take advantage of this individual empowerment and use these tools to enhance collective welfare. Hence, democracy is better suited to the Modern World than kingdoms, dictatorships, or socialist systems. Yet, communism is becoming more viable as individuals use technology to realize Marx's Maxim: "To each according to need, from each according to ability." That fits craiglist and Ebay perfectly. Governments recognize this and provide the tools as well as the training to use the tools.
In contrast, the Ancient World is based on the collective, whether the unit is as small as a family, as large as a religion, or something in between, such as a tribe or a religious sect. The Ancient World sees the individual, and the empowerment facilitated by technology, as a threat to this collective social units because it undermines the glue that holds the collective together. Collective units exist on the basis of love, loyalty, and trust within the group, but not outside the group. The individual emphasis eliminates loyalty to the group and makes it voluntary, based on reason.
It's clear to see that a social system based on the individual is incompatible with a social system based on collective units of various sizes. This is why the Iraq war could never have been successful. The idea of spreading democracy (a Modern World idea based on the individual) to a region based on the Ancient World social modes is inherently flawed, no matter how many troops, money, and effective planning went into the invasion. To put it bluntly, the bigger the invasion and occupying army, the bigger the eventual failure.
Yet, this is not how most people view this conflict. Instead, most people adopt a liberal, conservative, or centrist position.
The liberal perspective focuses on means instead of ends. It argues that the U.S. is in Iraq because of lies told by Bush, and so there is no reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq in the first place. Hence, the U.S. should leave as soon as possible. The conservative perspective focuses on goals instead of methods. It argues that the general threat of Iraq to the Middle East, and the specific threat of what neo-conservatives call Islamic Fascism (as represented by Al Qeada), requires an open-ended presence in the whole Middle East, with Iraq as the first stop, followed by Iran, Syria, and possibly even Saudi Arabia. These arguments are generally reflective of the arguments offered by liberals and conservatives regarding Vietnam: liberals claimed that it was impossible for the U.S. to succeed in Vietnam, while conservatives argued that the threat of Communism required a U.S. military presence in South Vietnam. It isn’t surprising that the arguments are nearly identical. The most prominent liberals today got their start protesting the Vietnam War, and today’s conservatives are largely seeking an ideological enemy to replace Communism. Neo-conservatives have found radical Islam.
However, these arguments have quickly run out of steam for most Americans because the Iraq War is so fundamentally different in its consequences and its inception that the Vietnam War. One fundamental difference is that the Iraq War followed the worst terrorist attack on American soil, Sept. 11, 2001, and so most Americans generally recognize the threat of radical Islam. The other fundamental difference is that, while Americans understand the consequences of radical Islam, they do not know whether Iraq is an element in those consequences. Thus, the middle, or centrist position on the Iraq War has been consistent: even if the U.S. made a mistake by invading Iraq, and even if Iraq is peripheral to the specific threat of Al Qeada, Iraq now represents a possible focal point for Al Qeada recruitment of terrorists. As a result, the centrist position devolves into a discussion of the significance of chaos. Liberal centrists argue that the level of chaos in Iraq is increasing, and therefore it is best to move American soldiers out of harm’s way, but not necessarily bring them home. Since liberal centrists recognize the possible threat posed by Iran and Syria in the region, they advocate using American soldiers as a buffer to separate Iraqis from each other and Iraq from neighboring states. On the other hand, conservative centrists argue that the level of chaos will increase whether American soldiers leave or not, and so the proper role of American soldiers shouldn’t be merely maintaining the status quo by getting out of the way. Instead, they advocate more actively confronting Iran and Syria, either through diplomatic efforts, or, at the extreme, military strikes.
The liberal position is represented by Frank Rich , who continues to highlight the unscrupulous methods use by Bush and his administration to push the U.S. into invading Iraq. Rich explains that Cheney has been very testy lately because he knows the unethical and illegal methods used to push the U.S. into war are coming into light with the Libby Trial. "The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war." So, the basic problem posed by Iraq is that it is now a death trap created by the Bush Administration. The Libby Trial is taking on greater meaning because it is exposing why the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place: to help the Republicans with the 2002 election, and put an end to the unresolved conflict of Bush’s father and Saddam Hussein.
The conservative position is represented by David Brooks . He notes that today’s students are much more likely to take the centrist position in American politics. He defines the centrist position as aware of the failures in Iraq and the of government at home. With this awareness, they have a "visceral distaste for people who are overly certain or unable to see some truth in the other side." Consequently, they like policies that are "practical, anti-ideological, modest." However, Brooks also notes that the centrist position does not want to "grapple with the Middle East or Islamic extremism." In previous columns, such as The Era of What's Next, Brooks has argued that Radical Islam is one of the defining problems of this era. "The people who will be most important are those who can most precisely identify the new era's defining problems. The first is the continuing rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It's clear the categories of the nation-state era -- rollback and containment -- are not working to reverse extremism, but what will?"
In contrast, the Ancient World is based on the collective, whether the unit is as small as a family, as large as a religion, or something in between, such as a tribe or a religious sect. The Ancient World sees the individual, and the empowerment facilitated by technology, as a threat to this collective social units because it undermines the glue that holds the collective together. Collective units exist on the basis of love, loyalty, and trust within the group, but not outside the group. The individual emphasis eliminates loyalty to the group and makes it voluntary, based on reason.
It's clear to see that a social system based on the individual is incompatible with a social system based on collective units of various sizes. This is why the Iraq war could never have been successful. The idea of spreading democracy (a Modern World idea based on the individual) to a region based on the Ancient World social modes is inherently flawed, no matter how many troops, money, and effective planning went into the invasion. To put it bluntly, the bigger the invasion and occupying army, the bigger the eventual failure.
Yet, this is not how most people view this conflict. Instead, most people adopt a liberal, conservative, or centrist position.
The liberal perspective focuses on means instead of ends. It argues that the U.S. is in Iraq because of lies told by Bush, and so there is no reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq in the first place. Hence, the U.S. should leave as soon as possible. The conservative perspective focuses on goals instead of methods. It argues that the general threat of Iraq to the Middle East, and the specific threat of what neo-conservatives call Islamic Fascism (as represented by Al Qeada), requires an open-ended presence in the whole Middle East, with Iraq as the first stop, followed by Iran, Syria, and possibly even Saudi Arabia. These arguments are generally reflective of the arguments offered by liberals and conservatives regarding Vietnam: liberals claimed that it was impossible for the U.S. to succeed in Vietnam, while conservatives argued that the threat of Communism required a U.S. military presence in South Vietnam. It isn’t surprising that the arguments are nearly identical. The most prominent liberals today got their start protesting the Vietnam War, and today’s conservatives are largely seeking an ideological enemy to replace Communism. Neo-conservatives have found radical Islam.
However, these arguments have quickly run out of steam for most Americans because the Iraq War is so fundamentally different in its consequences and its inception that the Vietnam War. One fundamental difference is that the Iraq War followed the worst terrorist attack on American soil, Sept. 11, 2001, and so most Americans generally recognize the threat of radical Islam. The other fundamental difference is that, while Americans understand the consequences of radical Islam, they do not know whether Iraq is an element in those consequences. Thus, the middle, or centrist position on the Iraq War has been consistent: even if the U.S. made a mistake by invading Iraq, and even if Iraq is peripheral to the specific threat of Al Qeada, Iraq now represents a possible focal point for Al Qeada recruitment of terrorists. As a result, the centrist position devolves into a discussion of the significance of chaos. Liberal centrists argue that the level of chaos in Iraq is increasing, and therefore it is best to move American soldiers out of harm’s way, but not necessarily bring them home. Since liberal centrists recognize the possible threat posed by Iran and Syria in the region, they advocate using American soldiers as a buffer to separate Iraqis from each other and Iraq from neighboring states. On the other hand, conservative centrists argue that the level of chaos will increase whether American soldiers leave or not, and so the proper role of American soldiers shouldn’t be merely maintaining the status quo by getting out of the way. Instead, they advocate more actively confronting Iran and Syria, either through diplomatic efforts, or, at the extreme, military strikes.
The liberal position is represented by Frank Rich , who continues to highlight the unscrupulous methods use by Bush and his administration to push the U.S. into invading Iraq. Rich explains that Cheney has been very testy lately because he knows the unethical and illegal methods used to push the U.S. into war are coming into light with the Libby Trial. "The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war." So, the basic problem posed by Iraq is that it is now a death trap created by the Bush Administration. The Libby Trial is taking on greater meaning because it is exposing why the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place: to help the Republicans with the 2002 election, and put an end to the unresolved conflict of Bush’s father and Saddam Hussein.
The conservative position is represented by David Brooks . He notes that today’s students are much more likely to take the centrist position in American politics. He defines the centrist position as aware of the failures in Iraq and the of government at home. With this awareness, they have a "visceral distaste for people who are overly certain or unable to see some truth in the other side." Consequently, they like policies that are "practical, anti-ideological, modest." However, Brooks also notes that the centrist position does not want to "grapple with the Middle East or Islamic extremism." In previous columns, such as The Era of What's Next, Brooks has argued that Radical Islam is one of the defining problems of this era. "The people who will be most important are those who can most precisely identify the new era's defining problems. The first is the continuing rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It's clear the categories of the nation-state era -- rollback and containment -- are not working to reverse extremism, but what will?"
posted by Marriah @ 5:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home