Essay by Martha Quillen
Modern Times – January 2007 – Colorado Central Magazine
FROM THE VERY FIRST, the war in Iraq incited division, anger, and accusations. To me, it sounded way too much like Viet Nam era polemics. The rhetoric was hyperbolic, rawly emotional, and furious. Here, we were again: “America, love it or leave it.” “You cowards.” “You warmongers.” “You traitors.” “You murderers.” “Don’t you know that by protesting the war, you’re aiding the enemy?”
Someone in Salida vandalized an “Attack Iraq” sign, and the intensity escalated. In that climate, it wasn’t possible to debate, discuss or deliberate — anything.
As I saw it, our entry into Iraq was frightening. Even if it turned out that Bush was right about Saddam Hussein, he needed to persuade our allies, convince the U.N., and build consensus here at home before sending our troops abroad.
Bush was acting precipitously, unilaterally, and brazenly. We were already fighting in Afghanistan. What if there was more resistance in Iraq than he expected? What if things went wrong? What if the region became a magnet for terrorists? What if the Middle East destabilized and fell into generalized warfare?
Where would we find the money, the manpower, or the will to prevail in that case? And what might Americans have to sacrifice? Would we have to initiate a draft? Cut school and hospital funding? Cut funds for our national forests? Roads? Medicare? Veterans’ benefits? Or disaster relief?
With less federal funding how would we rebuild in the event of a devastating forest fire? Or a domestic terror attack? (To tell the truth, living where I do, I never even considered a hurricane.)
At the time, I fervently hoped that Congress would do its job and debate some of these issues. Was the war really necessary? Was a war in Iraq worth any or all possible costs and repercussions? What might it cost in a worst-case scenario?
But Congress didn’t debate such issues. Nor did Americans. And considering the climate here at home, I’m not sure that any kind of meaningful discussion could have taken place, so it’s probably just as well that we skipped it.
The older I get, the more problematic communication seems. In fact, believing in the efficacy of communication strikes me as being a little like believing in Santa Claus.
There just doesn’t seem to be much evidence that conversation, commentary, debate, protest, or dissent can change hearts and minds. On the contrary, debate usually seems to exacerbate our differences. And it also tends to simplify our positions into stark, either-or terms that are neither comprehensive nor realistic. Usually our political positions are far more complex than the partisan pundits imply.
TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, I was against entering the war in Iraq, and also against the Gulf War, intervention in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and lobbing bombs into Iran. Once we were committed, I thought we might be able to accomplish something in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, but I wouldn’t have supported sending troops there in the first place. Perversely, however, having already sent troops in, I thought we should have tried harder in Somalia.
Yet I’m uneasy about the idea of intervening in Darfur, and puzzled by the insistence that we should have done more in Rwanda. Although the slaughter in Rwanda was horrific, I can’t help but wonder if that country would have fared better or worse if we’d contributed more arms and foreign soldiers to the fray.
Whatever the result would have been, I realize that my personal positions are not winners in the democratic scheme of things, so I don’t expect my views to prevail — although I do hope that someday more people will start worrying about whether supplying weaponry and training combatants is the best way to handle humanitarian crises in troubled regions (since one notable result is the proliferation of wicked War Lords leading well-armed battalions of teens). On the other hand, however, I recognize that I don’t have any great ideas about what we should do instead.
MORE TO THE POINT, though, things usually go a lot better than I expect. In fact, when Bush announced that we’d won in Iraq, I was relieved. Once again I’d been proven wrong, and that was a very good thing, indeed. Because to me, the most important business of war is establishing a viable and lasting peace. In fact, I wish we were doing that right now in Iraq.
But at this point, it looks like peace in Iraq won’t be coming any time soon.
According to conventional wisdom, the Republicans’ big loss in November was because most U.S. citizens are disillusioned with the President’s war tactics. And now the Iraq Study Group (ISG) has announced that our country’s course in Iraq isn’t working, and the polls indicate that most Americans want a change.
President Bush, however, seems to have heard another message.
Although the President quickly promised to adopt a new strategy after hearing the ISG’s report, it seemed like his new direction was more about words than about war.
Immediately, “Stay the Course” got replaced with “The Way Forward.” That phrase, however, drew too many jokes. So now our position appears to be poised between: “We Will Stand Firm,” “We Will Prevail,” and “Defeat is Not an Option.”
A report by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said, “Bush seems determined to play the role of a 21st-century Winston Churchill, steadfast in the West’s darkest hour, when many Americans see Bush as the captain on the bridge of the Titanic.”
Like many Americans, I, too, was disillusioned with our President (which was really upsetting since I’d never had any illusions about him in the first place).
And I also appreciated all the caustic lampoons being sent his way, since he had definitely landed us in a catastrophic mess. Recently, a friend showed me a list of anti-Bush bumper stickers. Bush: Like a rock, only dumber. Dubya, his father should have pulled out sooner, too. Republicans: Building a bridge to the 11th century. (For more slogans, you only need to check out the hundreds of websites selling stickers and t-shirts — and note from all this enterprise that for once the Republicans really are helping the working guys.)
Ahhhh, yes, some of these jokes did have the power to make this “liberal” feel better about things — for all of five or ten minutes.
But to be fair, the Iraq Study Group didn’t merely lambaste Bush’s Stay the Course strategy; it rejected all of the commonly promoted Iraq strategies.
Now, for better or worse, the news is out. Iraq’s a mess; terrorism is getting worse rather than better; and many of the reasons Americans were given for fighting in Iraq, including Saddam’s illegal caches of WMDs and his involvement with Al Qaeda, were wrong.
So what do we do? Well, that’s what the Iraq Study Group was formed to consider, and its report is available for free, on-line, in its entirety, or can be purchased at local bookstores. And curiously, it repudiates all three courses that our politicians keep talking about.
According to the ISG, precipitate withdrawal would “be wrong” and almost certainly “produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to … greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.”
AS FOR STAYING THE COURSE, the report concludes that too many Americans are dying there; the “level of expense is not sustainable,” especially since there’s no progress being made; and the longer we’re there, “the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation.” The ISG report also quotes an official, “The current approach without modification will not make it better.”
And it concludes that sending in more troops “would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.”
Instead of suggesting any of those courses, the Iraq Study Group makes dozens upon dozens of recommendations intended to reduce sectarian violence in Iraq, develop allies to aid in stabilizing the region, and eventuate long-term diplomatic solutions.
Some of the ISG’s recommendations will doubtlessly be even more repugnant for many Americans than the idea of staying the course or cutting and running. But hopefully, this report will help change the dialogue and damper some of our resentment. (Either that, or, the way things are going, Iraqis won’t be the only ones in need of “national reconciliation.” )
I remember, back in 1969 or ’70, Ed and I went to the mountains with Rick Fritzler, a high school friend of Ed’s who drove a Volkswagon bus plastered with peace stickers — which was not the best thing to drive into this staunchly conservative region in those days.
But Rick’s VW was a considerably roomier vehicle for camping gear than our ’54 Chevy. So Rick was driving up the Gold Camp road, when a middle-aged man in a pick-up adorned with a peace sign, attached to the appellation “Footprint of the American Chicken,” started yelling at us. Rick shouted something back, and the guy in the pick-up decided to run us off the road — quite literally. He got between us and the cliffside, and tried to force us over, repeatedly. He shouted; he shook his fist; he darted his truck toward us again and again, and he even rammed our bumper.
I couldn’t believe it. The drop-off to our left was huge, and this guy was actually trying to kill us. Over what?
FOR A MOMENT we careened toward the edge, but finally Rick managed to skid to a sideways halt in front of the truck. By then, Rick and Ed were ready to kill, too. But upon realizing that he’d be outnumbered in hand-to-hand combat, the guy pulled a U-turn and skedaddled.
Conservative spokesmen frequently maintain that peaceniks are deluded, because there are ideals worth fighting for and compromise isn’t always effective or wise.
And I agree.
But that doesn’t mean you should give everybody an AK-47 and send them out shooting, which pretty much seems to sums up what we’ve inadvertently accomplished during a half century of attempting to help Africa, stop drug-trafficking in Central America, support Israel, and fight communism and terrorism by military means.
Pacifism, alone, may not be a solution. But neither is war.
Having read about half of the ISG, I can’t say that our options seem thrilling — or even particularly promising. But if Americans can learn to talk about this stuff without becoming enraged — and we somehow learn to assess our situation better and to understand the viewpoints of those who seem out to get us — maybe we can avoid making things worse.
And in the interests of real peace in a real world, that alone may not be a solution, but it’s a start.
