I have to disagree with my friend on a few points. While I do think Mr Maliki's statement of at least implied support for Senator Obama's withdrawal plan/timeline was significant, I think it's neither as consequential nor as clear cut as my friend imagines.
First of all, it's not entirely clear what Mr Maliki's real desire is regarding American troops. Public support for American withdrawal - or rather public opposition to American presence - is a political necessity for him. But there are plenty of Iraqi's - and many in Maliki's own government - who are scared to death of an American withdrawal.
One of the things we can do in a situation such as this - where we know better than to assume the truthfulness of one side in a debate - is ook at the vehemence of each side's proclamations. Most Iraqi's, including Mr Maliki, who make the case for American withdrawal say that it is what the Iraqi's want and what they deserve now that Iraq is a sovereign nation; no one on this side of the argument has - to my knowledge - made any statements to the effect that chaos would erupt and Iraq would fall apart if the Americans didn't withdraw.
On the other side of the debate, nearly everyone who makes the case for a continued American presence in Iraq talks of chaos if America withdraws. I'm not saying that they are necessarily more correct simply because of their vehemence, and I don't necessarily disagree with Obama's timeline for withdawal, I'm just pointing the discussion in the direction of a group of people who have something significant to contribute to the debate and who are very, very serious believers in their opinion.
More importantly, though, is my objection to my friends argument that it is inconsequential whether or not McCain was right on the need for the surge. I very much disagree with this point, and I think that the fact that McCain has been proven correct in his support (and that Obama has been proven wrong) is very important.
It was a very difficult decision not to cut and run in Iraq, especially for someone who knows first hand that sending troops into battle inevitably means bringing home some of those troops in caskets. We faced a choice in Iraq then, when the surge was being debated: either we admit that Iraq was a mistake, that the mess we made is irreversible and that we have to abandon the country; or we admit that we simply can't leave the country and the region in its present state, - regardless of who is most responsible for that state - and that no matter how much it seems that cutting and running is viable alternative, it is in fact no such thing. This situation may present itself again in the future - likely during an Obama presidency.
Even if Obama has been proven correct in his original opposition to the war, I hope that, while he admits that there were unforeseen circumstances which have led to greater stability in Iraq, he also realizes that even the worst of situations are improvable; and that he learns something of a lesson from what the surge has accomplished. I very much want Obama to be our next president; but I would feel better knowing that he understands that it was an uncompromising attitude to unacceptable outcomes and shear nerve as much as it was unforeseen circumstances that gave the US new life in Iraq and (s0 far) kept us from having to deal with an infinitely worse situation in the Middle East.
First of all, it's not entirely clear what Mr Maliki's real desire is regarding American troops. Public support for American withdrawal - or rather public opposition to American presence - is a political necessity for him. But there are plenty of Iraqi's - and many in Maliki's own government - who are scared to death of an American withdrawal.
One of the things we can do in a situation such as this - where we know better than to assume the truthfulness of one side in a debate - is ook at the vehemence of each side's proclamations. Most Iraqi's, including Mr Maliki, who make the case for American withdrawal say that it is what the Iraqi's want and what they deserve now that Iraq is a sovereign nation; no one on this side of the argument has - to my knowledge - made any statements to the effect that chaos would erupt and Iraq would fall apart if the Americans didn't withdraw.
On the other side of the debate, nearly everyone who makes the case for a continued American presence in Iraq talks of chaos if America withdraws. I'm not saying that they are necessarily more correct simply because of their vehemence, and I don't necessarily disagree with Obama's timeline for withdawal, I'm just pointing the discussion in the direction of a group of people who have something significant to contribute to the debate and who are very, very serious believers in their opinion.
More importantly, though, is my objection to my friends argument that it is inconsequential whether or not McCain was right on the need for the surge. I very much disagree with this point, and I think that the fact that McCain has been proven correct in his support (and that Obama has been proven wrong) is very important.
It was a very difficult decision not to cut and run in Iraq, especially for someone who knows first hand that sending troops into battle inevitably means bringing home some of those troops in caskets. We faced a choice in Iraq then, when the surge was being debated: either we admit that Iraq was a mistake, that the mess we made is irreversible and that we have to abandon the country; or we admit that we simply can't leave the country and the region in its present state, - regardless of who is most responsible for that state - and that no matter how much it seems that cutting and running is viable alternative, it is in fact no such thing. This situation may present itself again in the future - likely during an Obama presidency.
Even if Obama has been proven correct in his original opposition to the war, I hope that, while he admits that there were unforeseen circumstances which have led to greater stability in Iraq, he also realizes that even the worst of situations are improvable; and that he learns something of a lesson from what the surge has accomplished. I very much want Obama to be our next president; but I would feel better knowing that he understands that it was an uncompromising attitude to unacceptable outcomes and shear nerve as much as it was unforeseen circumstances that gave the US new life in Iraq and (s0 far) kept us from having to deal with an infinitely worse situation in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment