One slogan of the antiwar movement has been “Not one more dollar. Not one more death.”
The problem with this slogan should be somewhat self-evident; what was conveniently omitted was the implied position of “Not one more American death.”
Largely absent from antiwar thought is consideration of the suffering or the needs of the Iraqi people; leftist compassion for those who have been hit hardest by the conflict seems to have taken a backseat. Instead, there is a great focus on the protection of national interest, manifested in disproportionate concern for the welfare of the military.
There is yet another problem. By placing short-term nationalist gratification on a higher level than the human rights of Iraqis, antiwar activists find themselves on the same ideological end as the neoconservatives who deceived Americans into the war.
This is a quandary that no critical thinker should take lightly. Thus far in the Iraq war, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, with millions displaced.
Due to America’s incompetence in its reconstruction of Iraq, the worst radical elements of the Middle East have been permitted to ascend and now exert a large amount of control over a state that was once considered socially progressive relative to its region.
Entire religious groups are threatened with extinction. Adolescent Iraqi girls are forced to prostitute themselves in Damascus in order to survive. In consideration of the hell that America has wrought upon the Iraqis, why is there such a preoccupation with American interests among the antiwar movement?
The easy answer for many is that the United States has no reason to remain in Iraq due to the failures of the conflict thus far and the inconceivability of any further successes. This is ignorant at best.
The current anarchic condition of Iraq is indeed daunting to consider, but an American presence in Iraq remains the best plausible scenario for a sane Iraqi recovery from the conflict.
Why? In order to answer that question, one must examine the likely consequences of withdrawal.
American withdrawal would mean several things. If American troops were to withdraw now, any progress that would have been made in Iraq would dissipate. A January 2007 report by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy analyzed 11 civil wars in the past 30 years. The study demonstrated that in every case a collapse of order resulted in military intervention by neighboring states seeking to protect their own interests.
Turkey will make moves to crush nascent Kurdish nationalism in northern Iraq as it has brutally done within its own borders. Shia militias like the Jaish al-Mahdi, so far restrained by fear of American retaliation, will have nothing to stop them from large-scale ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, Christians, Palestinians and other groups. Iran will certainly fully exert its influence to push moves that secure the possibility of a Shia-dominated puppet state.
According to the United Nations, Iraq is already showing warning signs for genocide. Given withdrawal, the situation could easily spiral further in that direction.
Many American policies toward Iraq have proven to be incompetent at best. According to an article in The Nation, American troops frequently operate with impunity and disdain for the lives of Iraqi civilians. The North County Times, a San Diego County newspaper, has shown that the military justice system is an embarrassment in bringing soldiers to justice.
Despite all this, the American presence in Iraq remains the lesser of many evils in this situation.
The cost to America may appear dramatic but it is negligible compared to what Iraqis have endured daily for the past four years.
The antiwar movement and liberals in general must not repeat the mistakes of recent years by weighing America’s reactionary, populist desires against the well-being of millions of innocent people.
Raman is a fifth-year music and premedical student.