20 December 2007
Seizing the Moment in Iraq
General Barry McCaffrey’s report in the December 20, 2007, Wall Street Journal on recently returning from Iraq shows that he has desperately grabbed at the current rationalization for the U.S. invasion in order to give some meaning to the “valor and creativity of U.S. combat forces.” He was apparently convinced of this strategy by General David Petraeus, who has become a front man for neoconservatives frustrated by the failure of Wilsonian goals for world government.
If only it was the point of U.S. intervention in Iraq to end the bitter division in that “nation.” The surge, along with the Sunnis’ “tribal awakening,” has proven to be an effective tool for dampening violence in the country. Indeed, if the U.S. had been appointed by a non-existent global security organization as its official last resort settler of factional disputes, a large military force, even larger than the surge-fortified U.S. occupation, could well have performed that task in Iraq. Unfortunately, that task would not necessarily ever come to an end.
America was led into this war under false pretenses and in a panic over terrorist attacks. Military leaders like Gens. McCaffrey and Petraeus understandably have devised, executed and narrated strategies that effectively carry out the mission that they have been given. However, it is wrong for us to accept a war as good public policy just because it can be performed well by our military. The point of wars is not to win them; they must only be undertaken to accomplish truthfully justifiable national security objectives that are not achievable through peaceful means. Seizing the moment to take advantage of the upper hand provided to us by the surge may allow us to pull out of Iraq and leave the country to deal its dissolution on its own.
General Barry McCaffrey’s report in the December 20, 2007, Wall Street Journal on recently returning from Iraq shows that he has desperately grabbed at the current rationalization for the U.S. invasion in order to give some meaning to the “valor and creativity of U.S. combat forces.” He was apparently convinced of this strategy by General David Petraeus, who has become a front man for neoconservatives frustrated by the failure of Wilsonian goals for world government.
If only it was the point of U.S. intervention in Iraq to end the bitter division in that “nation.” The surge, along with the Sunnis’ “tribal awakening,” has proven to be an effective tool for dampening violence in the country. Indeed, if the U.S. had been appointed by a non-existent global security organization as its official last resort settler of factional disputes, a large military force, even larger than the surge-fortified U.S. occupation, could well have performed that task in Iraq. Unfortunately, that task would not necessarily ever come to an end.
America was led into this war under false pretenses and in a panic over terrorist attacks. Military leaders like Gens. McCaffrey and Petraeus understandably have devised, executed and narrated strategies that effectively carry out the mission that they have been given. However, it is wrong for us to accept a war as good public policy just because it can be performed well by our military. The point of wars is not to win them; they must only be undertaken to accomplish truthfully justifiable national security objectives that are not achievable through peaceful means. Seizing the moment to take advantage of the upper hand provided to us by the surge may allow us to pull out of Iraq and leave the country to deal its dissolution on its own.
Comments:
Post a Comment
