A Comment About

TO ARMS: Still the President of the United States

January 24, 2007 - 2:10 am
Sarah F
2007-01-29 13:23:33

Hi all! From down here in New Zealand, it strikes me that Republicans and Democrats have well and truly retreated to their corners over the war issue, which is all somewhat disturbing for the rest of us in the world who don’t get to participate in American politics but are nevertheless profoundly affected by them.

As I recall, the invasion of Iraq was NOT originally part of the ‘War on Terror’. Saddam Hussein was an unreliable despot with the potential to cause serious instability in a region that was already on the brink of chaos. Deposing the man wasn’t necessarily a terrible idea, but in my view history demonstrates that the plan to do so was poorly thought out and badly executed, perhaps with too much reliance on a subsequent emergence of some resistance movement that could step up to run the country (but which had unfortunately been flushed out and exterminated following the previous U.S. invasion…? Speculating here, really, but this did seem to be the expectation at the time from what I remember).

I raise this point because the President’s speech appears to represent the Iraq war as the ‘War on Terror’ itself, as if it is a battle-front against which the Allied armies are fighting the proponents of 9/11. Frankly, I don’t believe this is a fair representation (the Iraq fight seems like more of a ‘War on Anarchy’ to me); but more importantly, given that the nature of the fight has changed so much (i.e. from an invasion and regime-change to a re-instatement of civil order), I wish I had more confidence in the U.S. administration’s ability to adapt and meet this change.

I agree that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be irresponsible; but sending more troops is no panacea either. If they were my kids over there, I’d be demanding more information on why the strategy hasn’t worked until now, and what changes will be made to give confidence that it’ll work from now on. Every good strategy should also include some measurable targets and timeframes also, and I think it’s not unreasonable to expect to be told what these are. For the price your citizens have paid for this war, surely you can demand more than rhetoric, however rousing?