Call it 'peace with honor' and bring our troops home
In the 1960s an uneasy America was told not to listen to the rising voices against the war. If we just stay the course, we were promised, America will win the hearts and minds of the native people and they will be liberated. If we leave before the job is done, we were warned, the whole region will come under the rule of a menacing force driven by a frightful, non-Western ideology.
In 1975, Marine helicopters plucked the last Americans from the rooftop of the U.S. Embassy amid the furious cries of the angry masses. Staying the course gained nothing as the Vietnamese people never trusted the U.S. government. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers sacrificed their young lives.
Twenty months into the Iraq war, it is hard to visualize what could happen for the Iraqi people to welcome and trust the Americans. We were told that installing an Iraqi as interim prime minister until the election would show the Iraqis that they're in charge and, as a result, violence directed toward Americans would decline.
In fact, since Ayad Allawi assumed office, each month but one has seen more U.S. soldiers die than the month before. More died in November than in any other month.
Elections were the next great promise for peace, but does anyone really believe free and fair elections will even take place in January as long promised, let alone result in less violence? Now comes the announcement that troop force will be increased by another 12,000. Are we to believe that this is the final piece of the puzzle that will lead to peace and democracy?
Americans might believe ourselves to be liberators, but that doesn't matter. What is important is that to most Iraqis we're occupiers and, as with the Vietnamese, it is against their history and ethos to welcome occupiers.
The reasons we went into Iraq depend on whom you ask and when, but most people agree that among the reasons we invaded Iraq were to rid the world of a tyrant and to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. Most understand the former, but the concept of freedom and liberation is more complicated.
To most Americans, freedom means Western-style democracy. But that has never been part of the culture of vast regions of the globe, particularly in the Middle East. For many around the world, freedom means life unbound by foreign occupiers, especially those with very different social and religious norms.
As long as American soldiers are patrolling their streets and the Iraqis who work with the Americans are seen as traitors, Iraq will never move on to independence and security. Rather, the various factions will be united in a common enemy and the chaos will continue.
If the United States leaves, will Iraq become a haven for international terrorists? Maybe. Some might say it already is. But the real question for Americans is whether our presence here will make a difference, and how many lives will it take until we know?
No one can say what kind of a nation Iraq will eventually become. Vietnam's fall didn't produce the global rise of communism, as had been widely predicted. In fact, today it is a popular destination for the high-end traveler.
One thing is apparent. The trend line in Iraq, as in Vietnam in the '60s, is not for acceptance of American occupation and more stability; just the opposite. And while fighting insurgents door to door or carpet-bombing villages might win battles or give the illusion back home that we are making progress, it is surely a losing strategy for winning the peace.
We can slog through for another decade, or the Bush administration can declare victory and bring our troops home. Call it peace with honor. Whatever the spin, we need to bring our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, dads and moms home, and we need to do it soon.
Ed Murphy, Minneapolis, is the executive director of a nonprofit organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment