Since President Bush’s address on Iraq last Wednesday,
there’s been an awful lot of talk about responsibility.
Whose responsibility is it, we ponder, to pacify a country riven
by civil war and to coax it into a stable, democratic future?
It’s common now to suggest that it is not the Americans
““ who catalyzed this atrocious civil war ““ but the
Iraqis, who now bear that responsibility.
“The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their
nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie
ahead. And they must know that every time they call 9-1-1 we are
not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers,” said Senate
Majority Whip Dick Durbin in a statement last week.
This sentiment is gaining popularity among not only those who,
like Durbin, oppose the war, but also among those who support
it.
But in calling for Iraqis to fix their own country after we
demolished it, advocates of withdrawal are dodging their own
responsibility.
After over 60,000 have died and 1,800,000 Iraqis have fled their
homes as refugees, the sad fact remains that the United States
caused the war.
We must now face that fact, and own up to our responsibility
““ our obligation ““ to give Iraqis the support they
need.
And do the Iraqis ever need it.
While progress has been made training Iraqi security forces,
only a handful of them are reliable enough to put down the
sectarian militias that are tearing the country apart.
Only 10,000 Iraqi security forces ““ out of 115,000 that
are “technically proficient” ““ are currently
considered less “inclined to stoke sectarian strife (than) to
contain it,” according to the Brookings Institution’s
Iraq Index.
That makes Iraq’s future look all the more disturbing when
folks who supported the war, along with those who did not, call for
Iraqis to now determine their own fate.
The situation in Iraq is terrible, and however painful it may be
for Americans, without the presence of American troops it will only
get worse.
The president’s “new way forward” in Iraq
““ which calls for an increase of more than 21,500 troops in
Iraq and a massive job creation program ““ is the only plan on
the table that owns up to the United State’s responsibility
there.
It is indeed a flawed plan. It contains no clear political
solution to the wrenching Shia-Sunni divide.
There are also questions as to whether the administration, with
its dismal track record in Iraq, can even manage the troops
effectively.
But still, it’s the only plan out there with a chance of
improving Iraq.
Under the new strategy, American forces will now go after Shia
militias. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has sworn not to frustrate
that process, as he’s been accused of doing in the past.
This is something that hasn’t been tried, and if it works,
it has the potential, albeit remote, to ease sectarian tensions,
and pacify the country.
Indeed, many fear that it may be too little, too late, but if
it’s got a chance, then it’s got to be tried.
Our responsibility to Iraq requires nothing less.
It’s awful to see American soldiers come home wounded.
It’s worse still to see them die.
But that horror is the same for the Iraqis who each day see
their children, friends and lovers killed. It is the same for
Iraqis who each day see their businesses and homes destroyed by
bombs. Iraqis each day see their entire world engulfed in more
agonizing violence and we cannot forget that we are the reason for
it.
Staying in Iraq will not be pretty.
But to leave and assume that Iraqis are ready to take over when
they are unquestionably unable to do so would be even worse.
To do so would abdicate a responsibility we’ve created for
ourselves ““ the responsibility to secure Iraq for the Iraqi
people.
E-mail Reed at treed@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.