Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
DARRYL STEIN
Staying the Course
Monday, September 26, 2005
It was the spring of 2003 when Berkeley was swept up in the initial fervor of the anti-war movement. Sproul Plaza was sat-in, black armbands were distributed, professors ranted and the really motivated folks took BART to San Francisco to join "die-ins," whatever those were.
Cut to today-it's fall 2005. I saw a guy wearing a "No blood for oil shirt" on Bancroft the other day and Cindy Sheehan has gotten the left-wing base in a huff again, spurring a camp out in Texas, dueling vigils across the country and a nationwide bus tour.
While her mantra of "Bring them home now!" sounds appealing to those who have opposed the war in Iraq for more than two years, it might not be the best strategic suggestion. As one friend of mine put it, just because George W. Bush was wrong doesn't mean that Sheehan is right.
In fact, the biggest problem that the "anti-war" movement has right now is the illusion that somehow the war they protested starting in 2003 is the same war that they're protesting today.
The 2003 movement was asking for multilateral responses to Saddam Hussein like U.N. resolutions and weapons inspectors. Not only were the demands legitimate, but the truth exposed after the invasion-that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had little or no connection to international terrorism-vindicated their claims.
But the 2005 case for withdrawal has almost nothing in common with this legacy. More than anything, it is an expression of grief carried forward with the momentum of anger and discontent bred by the deceptions of two years earlier.
Besides geography, are these movements even protesting the same thing? Yes, it's still about American troops in Iraq, but in very different ways. For one thing, Saddam Hussein has been out of power for some time, and we have long ago given up hope of finding weapons of mass destruction. For another, there now actually are foreign insurgents in the country, working with Sunni Arabs in the resistance, finally making Iraq part of Bush's "War on Terror," albeit after the fact.
While it would be convenient (not to mention flattering) to think of ourselves as the insurgency's only concern, it is not only an expression of anti-Americanism but also an attempt by the Sunni community to assert power in an internal conflict. Absent America's help in the coalition, it is unlikely that Poland alone will be able to keep even the currently secured zones stable amidst this fighting.
The only forces that could fill the void left by the American troops would be the still-not-disbanded sectarian militias. Unfortunately, such a resurgence in armed tensions after coalition security guarantees disappear would hurt the chances of more Sunnis voting "yes" in the upcoming constitutional referendum.
That draft constitution, warts and all, is the best hope for a unified Iraq, which is to say the best hope for a stable future, and helping along its passage is reason enough to stay, difficult and expensive though it may be.
One risk that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed was as a provider of safe harbor and support to those who would harm Americans. While this never happened, an Iraq that descends into open civil war, leaving an anarchical or state-less area for terrorists to train and organize might render the nightmare a reality.
Not that the counterinsurgency is going well by any means, but the way to fix things in Iraq isn't to pack up and go home. Just because we went in for the wrong reasons and are going about the rebuilding process rather badly doesn't mean we should up and leave completely.
On the contrary, having made these mistakes, we have an obligation to set things right as best we can.
Things have changed in the two years since the invasion, and so should the rebuilding process. For example, if the new German government is seeking closer ties to the United States, they could be valuable allies in a stronger, more global coalition.
Whichever side one took in 2003, it is time to put aside the hurt and momentum of the initial anti-war protests and think rationally about what will be best for the Iraqi people and the world at large.
Appealing though it may be to leave others to clean up our mess, perhaps we can look beyond the pain of a grief-stricken mother to find a plan for the future of Iraq.
Protest the occupation of this column with [email protected].
Kathianne said:Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with all that he says, but much of it is something all should hear:
http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=19642
