Iraq Thoughts from Will

[steuard]

Like me, my friend Will is a physicist, but unlike me he's a serious foreign policy junkie, too. His focus on international relations often leaves him off to one side from our nation's conventional Republican/Democrat political spectrum. We don't always agree on politics or policy, but I always find his insights valuable and he's become one of my main sources of understanding in the international arena.

At any rate, he just had a letter published in the New York Times, regarding the past and current significance of the war in Iraq (it's the second one on that page). And even cooler, today's lead editorial in the paper quoted from it. For the sake of those who aren't registered (or who don't follow links), I thought I'd quote it here (with his permission, naturally):

To the Editor:

You note that Iraq had nothing to do with the conflict with global jihadism before the 2003 invasion. But that does not mean that the Bush administration is not correct to cast it as the central struggle against Islamic extremism today.

The war in Iraq, which I opposed, has evolved into one of the most consequential conflicts in American history. We simply must win if we do not want to see Al Qaeda ascendant across the Middle East.

The left has to get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder and recognize the seriousness of the strategic realities in Iraq and beyond.

Will McElgin
Chicago, June 25, 2005

I think that what he says here makes a lot of sense, and it's awfully close to my own opinion on the matter. You may agree, or you may not. But if you're interested in seeing more of Will's thoughts on global politics or in commenting on his letter, take a look at his blog.

EDIT: After some comments by Patri, I realize that it could help to mention that to Will, "win" more or less means "Get Iraq on track for a stable democracy and leave." A recent blog post of his gives more detail.

Comments

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

I recognize the seriousness of the strategic realities, which is why I don't at all believe that we must "win" if we don't want to see terrorism ascendant. It looks to me like what we've done is provided a nice focal point for people to attack us, a training ground for people to learn to be terrorists, and a lot of angry people whose relatives we've killed, thus inspiring them to want to turn terrorist.

Honestly, I don't see how we can "win" other than by leaving. There is no way to kill all the terrorists, because new ones are being generated just as fast (sometimes because of our collateral damage, sometimes because of youth being brainwashed by religion). There is no way to avoid being killed while still doing our job there (as the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates).

If win means "leave, with a stable Iraqi govt", then I agree. If win means "The shootings will continue until Iraqi morale improves", then its unrealistic idiocy.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you here, and I think that Will would, too. In an earlier blog post, Will listed the following as the fourth out of five "rules" for Bush to avoid "losing" the war:

"Extrication should be the broader strategy (as I think it now is). America cannot stay in Iraq. It could not be supported by a democratic system in a nation in which Arab nationalism is still so potent. In fact a careful phased withdrawal may ultimately become part of a process of genuine reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites."

His rule #3 was essentially "No issue between the various parties in Iraq really means a goddamn thing to the well-being of the US; as long as they are settled within the presently evolving constitutional framework." More amusingly, rule #2 was "The Europeans would like to have their asses kissed for small favors over Iraq and the pursuit of global Islamists. Do so."

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

Ah, ok. That's not the definition of winning that I'm used to from hawks, but I'm down with that one. And I think most reasonable doves would agree that just because the war was utterly idiotic to start, doesn't mean we should go cold turkey now (though we should leave).

I get annoyed by the people who think that b/c we are killing lots of terrorists, we are "winning", when its much more likely that we are on net increasing the # of terrorists. They don't seem to understand that we might be producing new ones faster than removing old ones.