There is a clear and present danger that the Republican Party will exploit illegal immigration in the 2008 Presidential election in the same way that they were able to ride the gay marriage issue to victory in 2004. Democrats are generally avoiding the issue, but when pressed, each of them professes support for "comprehensive immigration reform" that would combine stepped-up border security and workplace enforcement with an earned legalization program. For evidence that this response is unsatisfactory, one need look no further than the unprecedented public outcry that twice killed the exact same proposal in Congress. Even worse, that opposition was directed most specifically at the part of the proposal most closely associated with the Democrats - legalization.
The reality that Democrats seem unable to face is that any effort to normalize the status of illegal immigrants will alienate a huge portion of the electorate. Witness the fates of Gray Davis and Elliot Spitzer, both Democratic governors of deeply blue states, in the wake of their respective attempts to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary Clinton's campaign was headed toward the safe shores of inevitability until her equivocating response to the driver's license issue opened a floodgate of criticism. Still smarting at the next debate two weeks later, she delivered a very UN-equivocal one-word response to the same question - "No" - and watched Barack Obama fall into the exact same trap. Given that these stumbles occurred in Democratic debates where none of the candidates is seeking to distinguish themselves on this issue, we can only imagine the pounding the Democratic nominee will take when faced with a Republican nominee like Rudolph Giuliani, who promises "tough" action on illegal immigration.
So the Democrats appear caught once again between a deeply held majority opinion and one of their core constituencies - this time Latinos. But all is not lost. I think that buried in the noise around this issue is a simple, elegant solution that a Democrat can wholeheartedly embrace. My suggestion proceeds from the very legitimate, universally accepted rationale behind comprehensive immigration reform: our legal immigration system is broken. Democrats are correct in advocating for a "fix" to this dysfunction. As mentioned above, however, normalizing the status of illegal immigrants currently in the country is not a viable solution. At the same time, an "enforcement-only" approach would wreak havoc on the Democratic coalition.
A better comprehensive immigration reform approach would be to replace the legalization plank with one in favor of substantially increasing the quotas for regular permanent resident visas. These are the famous "green cards" that do not require a sponsoring employer and allow their holders to work freely in the U.S. and, after five years, apply for full citizenship. Family reunification, potential to contribute to our economy and national diversity are already the priorities for these programs. Applicants are required to apply from their country of origin and known previous immigration violators are barred temporarily or permanently, depending on the nature of their offense.
Illegal immigrants, having voluntarily returned home, can apply for these visas, but with no special advantage or disadvantage. By significantly increasing the number of these visas available and improving processing times, however, many, if not most, current illegal immigrants would likely qualify and be able to quickly return to their communities with minimal disruption to their lives. Already, more of these visas go to Mexican immigrants than to those of any other nation. To the extent that their applications were unsuccessful, it would be in favor of similar applicants with even closer ties to America.
This proposal is neither amnesty nor mass deportation. By creating a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to voluntarily repatriate and apply to enter legally, we would greatly reduce the pressure at the border and at workplaces. We would also, however, provide a true "path to citizenship" and a better life for many illegal immigrants without rewarding the fact that they broke the law. It would increase our ability to enhance our economy and society through our immigration policy. It prioritizes keeping families together. The proportion of citizens and permanent residents in immigrant communities would greatly increase, creating a host of benefits for them and for America. And it would actually fix to our broken system.
I sincerely believe that Barack Obama is uniquely situated to advocate for such a proposal. It does not directly contradict anything in his current platform and would reinforce his reputation for creating solutions that transcend the divisive and polarizing politics of the past. As a person of color and son of an immigrant himself, he’d be relatively immune to charges from immigrant rights extremists of racism and xenophobia. His charisma, integrity and character would allow him to initiate conversations with potential opponents that others couldn’t.
As a campaign strategy, taking a strong stand on ending illegal immigration would also allow Obama to increase his appeal to the blue-collar voters who have been slow to catch on to his candidacy to this point and who are key to a Democratic victory in the general election. Through his advocacy of increasing the quotas for family reunification visas, he would also be creating new opportunities to deepen his base of support in Latino, Asian and other immigrant communities. In the general election, he would put any Republican opponent on the defensive by forcing them to oppose legal immigration.
It is this final point that is most critical. Democrats should stand strongly for immigration when it’s done the right way – legally. Immigration is the story of America -- the vast majority of us proudly trace our ancestry beyond our borders. But so is the rule of law. Republicans who oppose even legal immigration would be exposed as the true xenophobes and racists that they are in utter contrast to everything that Barack Obama represents and everything that most Americans aspire to be. That can only be a win for my candidate.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
A Response to Tom Hayden's 'Appeal to Barack Obama'
A Response to Tom Hayden’s Appeal
Tom Hayden recently posted “An Appeal to Barack Obama,” wherein he criticized Barack’s statements in a New York Times Magazine interview rejecting the Vietnam-era framework of Scoop Jackson Democrats vs. Tom Hayden Democrats. Hayden accuses Obama of Clintonian triangulation and centrism in general and in particular with respect to the War in Iraq and the issue of race. He argues that Obama would be better served politically by appealing to the antiwar “Tom Hayden Democrats” who will predominate in the Democratic primaries and intellectually by engaging in “substantive thinking” instead of just looking for a point exactly equidistant from each extreme. He also believes that Obama is consciously downplaying to his detriment “the deepest rationale” for his candidacy -- his race.
In my opinion, for Hayden, Clinton and others of the Sixties generation, the urgency to end the ideological battles that have stymied political progress in America is just not the same as it for younger people. After thirty years of ideological warfare in Washington and elsewhere, the Baby Boom generation will be the first in American history to bequeath to its children a worse quality of life than they themselves enjoyed. On issue after issue, we have seen the failure of our governmental institutions to make even the most basic progress on the fundamental issues facing our nation.
As the lives of the rich and poor diverge ever more widely from each other, our very status as a First World nation seems in question. Even as the affluent few enjoy unprecedented wealth and luxury, far more of us are sinking deeper and deeper into a quasi-Third World kind of existence where the basic necessities of housing, education, health care and a clean environment are increasingly out of reach. Meanwhile, our foreign policy spreads hatred and violence around the world, creating new enemies for American by the millions.
I, for one, am willing to trade a little bit of ideological purity in favor of a President who will roll up his or her sleeves, bring people together from across the political spectrum and produce some tangible progressive change in the status quo. Yes, the war in Iraq was a huge and immoral crime against humanity and Barack is the only major presidential candidate who spoke out against it when it wasn’t popular to do so. Iraq, however, is not Vietnam. We all want to end the war, but you don’t have to be a Scoop Jackson Democrat in order to be in favor of pulling our troops out in such as way as to avoid creating a humanitarian disaster and/or breeding ground for anti-American hatred and terrorism in our wake.
Hayden also seems to think that Obama’s alleged centrism is somehow connected to a desire to deemphasize his race – supposedly the “the deepest rationale” for his candidacy. Again, Hayden portrays his inability to lift his consciousness out of the false dichotomies of the Sixties generation – this time in the realm of identity politics. Obama transcends the old dichotomy of black militant/Uncle Tom Negro in the same way that he transcends the antiwar/hawk paradigm. He hasn’t built his popularity amongst whites by opposing affirmative action, like a Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas. But at the same time, he’s not an Al Sharpton either, running from one racial flashpoint to the next in order to express his “outrage” at the latest example of white racism. Although he has an excellent record of achievement on black causes such as racial profiling and death penalty reform, he doesn’t analyze every issue facing our nation through the prism of race. Most of all, he provides inspired and effective leadership to our nation that is informed but not proscribed by his experiences as a black man in America. That, for me, is the “deepest rationale” for Obama’s candidacy.
Obama’s blackness is, by itself, no rationale at all for his becoming President. This is not to say that race has nothing to do with it. I’m sure that Obama’s racial consciousness probably contributed to his decision to forsake a cushy life on Wall Street in order to become a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago and, later, a civil rights lawyer. The fact that he successfully represented the Southside for two terms in the Illinois State Legislature indicates to me that he understands and can be an effective advocate for the needs and concerns of black constituents. I believe I can honestly state, however, that if a white, Asian or Latino candidate emerged with the exact same record, platform and abilities as Obama, I would be equally excited about his or her campaign.
I would invite Mr. Hayden and others of the Sixties generation to try to put aside the old litmus tests and take a good look at what Obama has stood and fought for throughout his career. His platform and record with respect to every progressive cause is there for all to see. Yes, he has the ability to reach across the aisle, but it’s because he triangulates himself to the center; it’s because he listens and finds common ground in order to move forward a progressive agenda. His campaign eschews money from federal lobbyists and has directed considerable resources into grassroots political organizing in disenfranchised communities.
It is only through some magical combination of luck, charisma and timing that someone like Barack even has a remote chance at winning – a set of circumstances that I don’t expect to see again in my lifetime. Progressives would be making huge mistake, in my opinion, to ignore the Obama campaign because he’s not perfectly ideologically aligned with them on every single issue and does not want to replay the battles of past decades. This is the best chance we’ve had in a generation to bring about real progressive change at the federal level in America. Let’s take advantage of it!
Tom Hayden recently posted “An Appeal to Barack Obama,” wherein he criticized Barack’s statements in a New York Times Magazine interview rejecting the Vietnam-era framework of Scoop Jackson Democrats vs. Tom Hayden Democrats. Hayden accuses Obama of Clintonian triangulation and centrism in general and in particular with respect to the War in Iraq and the issue of race. He argues that Obama would be better served politically by appealing to the antiwar “Tom Hayden Democrats” who will predominate in the Democratic primaries and intellectually by engaging in “substantive thinking” instead of just looking for a point exactly equidistant from each extreme. He also believes that Obama is consciously downplaying to his detriment “the deepest rationale” for his candidacy -- his race.
In my opinion, for Hayden, Clinton and others of the Sixties generation, the urgency to end the ideological battles that have stymied political progress in America is just not the same as it for younger people. After thirty years of ideological warfare in Washington and elsewhere, the Baby Boom generation will be the first in American history to bequeath to its children a worse quality of life than they themselves enjoyed. On issue after issue, we have seen the failure of our governmental institutions to make even the most basic progress on the fundamental issues facing our nation.
As the lives of the rich and poor diverge ever more widely from each other, our very status as a First World nation seems in question. Even as the affluent few enjoy unprecedented wealth and luxury, far more of us are sinking deeper and deeper into a quasi-Third World kind of existence where the basic necessities of housing, education, health care and a clean environment are increasingly out of reach. Meanwhile, our foreign policy spreads hatred and violence around the world, creating new enemies for American by the millions.
I, for one, am willing to trade a little bit of ideological purity in favor of a President who will roll up his or her sleeves, bring people together from across the political spectrum and produce some tangible progressive change in the status quo. Yes, the war in Iraq was a huge and immoral crime against humanity and Barack is the only major presidential candidate who spoke out against it when it wasn’t popular to do so. Iraq, however, is not Vietnam. We all want to end the war, but you don’t have to be a Scoop Jackson Democrat in order to be in favor of pulling our troops out in such as way as to avoid creating a humanitarian disaster and/or breeding ground for anti-American hatred and terrorism in our wake.
Hayden also seems to think that Obama’s alleged centrism is somehow connected to a desire to deemphasize his race – supposedly the “the deepest rationale” for his candidacy. Again, Hayden portrays his inability to lift his consciousness out of the false dichotomies of the Sixties generation – this time in the realm of identity politics. Obama transcends the old dichotomy of black militant/Uncle Tom Negro in the same way that he transcends the antiwar/hawk paradigm. He hasn’t built his popularity amongst whites by opposing affirmative action, like a Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas. But at the same time, he’s not an Al Sharpton either, running from one racial flashpoint to the next in order to express his “outrage” at the latest example of white racism. Although he has an excellent record of achievement on black causes such as racial profiling and death penalty reform, he doesn’t analyze every issue facing our nation through the prism of race. Most of all, he provides inspired and effective leadership to our nation that is informed but not proscribed by his experiences as a black man in America. That, for me, is the “deepest rationale” for Obama’s candidacy.
Obama’s blackness is, by itself, no rationale at all for his becoming President. This is not to say that race has nothing to do with it. I’m sure that Obama’s racial consciousness probably contributed to his decision to forsake a cushy life on Wall Street in order to become a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago and, later, a civil rights lawyer. The fact that he successfully represented the Southside for two terms in the Illinois State Legislature indicates to me that he understands and can be an effective advocate for the needs and concerns of black constituents. I believe I can honestly state, however, that if a white, Asian or Latino candidate emerged with the exact same record, platform and abilities as Obama, I would be equally excited about his or her campaign.
I would invite Mr. Hayden and others of the Sixties generation to try to put aside the old litmus tests and take a good look at what Obama has stood and fought for throughout his career. His platform and record with respect to every progressive cause is there for all to see. Yes, he has the ability to reach across the aisle, but it’s because he triangulates himself to the center; it’s because he listens and finds common ground in order to move forward a progressive agenda. His campaign eschews money from federal lobbyists and has directed considerable resources into grassroots political organizing in disenfranchised communities.
It is only through some magical combination of luck, charisma and timing that someone like Barack even has a remote chance at winning – a set of circumstances that I don’t expect to see again in my lifetime. Progressives would be making huge mistake, in my opinion, to ignore the Obama campaign because he’s not perfectly ideologically aligned with them on every single issue and does not want to replay the battles of past decades. This is the best chance we’ve had in a generation to bring about real progressive change at the federal level in America. Let’s take advantage of it!
Friday, September 28, 2007
Blog Purpose and Why the Left is Wrong on the Iraq War
Hello World!
Or more accurately, the part of the world that is reading this . . . which is likely to be something close to zero . . . for now.
But hopefully, this blog will eventually find its desired audience: well-meaning American progressives and liberals who are open to new ideas about what the "left" side of the political spectrum should be doing right now.
If you are satisfied with the progressive and liberal agenda as well as the strategies and tactics being used to carry it out, then, by all means, click on . . .
. . . but the rest of us, this blog will hopefully contribute to a new discussion and, ultimately, new directions in thought and action.
This blog reflects a belief that if we need new thinking on the left in order to more effectively bring about the social, economic and political changes that we are seeking.
I think most of us would agree on much of what those changes would look like: ending poverty and building a prosperous middle class; maintaining a healthy and vibrant natural environment; achieving true racial and ethnic justice and equality; making sure that all Americans are able to access high-quality health care, education and housing without being driven into bankruptcy; an American foreign policy that supports peace, human rights and sustainable development. I could go on for pages, but I really think that there’s more consensus here than most of us realize.
We also know that there are very powerful forces within our political/economic system who oppose that agenda. The middle class has been shrinking, while the rich get richer and the poor get more numerous. Multinational corporations rape our national environment at an exponentially increasing rate. Health care, education and housing are being priced out of the budgets of more and more Americans every year. America’s foreign policy has by and large been an agent of war, injustice and poverty more often than not.
But most importantly, however, for purposes of this blog, is that I believe that any objective observer would have to conclude that the progressive and liberal agenda described above has been, for the most part, losing out to the agenda of the rich and the powerful since the ascendancy of the conservative movement to national power with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
And, I would argue, this trend of the last three decades stands in sharp contrast to the trend of most of the decades before it starting with the Progressive Movement and then the New Deal incredible positive changes were being fought for and won in American society. The incredible expansion of the middle class and reduction in poverty, the establishment of great national parks and innumerable local ones, racial integration of schools and public accommodation, quality health care, education and housing becoming affordable to more people than ever before and America leading the world in gigantic wars against the tyranny and oppression of Nazism and Authoritarian Communism.
So the fundamental questions, for me at least, are: Where did we go wrong and what can we do to get back on track?
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. That’s the beautiful thing about a blog – it can be used to stimulate a discussion so that answers can come from a variety of sources. But I have given this topic a lot of thought and study and I think that I have some valuable points to add to the discussion. But the point that I feel most sure about is that we aren’t having enough of these kinds of discussions. We keep beating out heads against brick walls trying to move them.
I’m hoping that this blog will convince enough of us to step back for a moment, look at the brick wall, realize that beating our heads against it will not cause it to crumble down before us, and begin to map out a strategy for going around or over the wall without losing our way.
At one level, this is a very theoretical discussion about ideology and pragmatism, democracy, etc., but I will try to embed that discussion within discussions of immediately relevant topics, i.e. topics that can be impacted upon right now. This is not an academic exercise. Wars are being prosecuted in our names, important elections are impending. We need to stay current and we need to put our beliefs into action whenever possible.
In that vein, I will start with what I would consider to be the two biggest political issues currently facing the left in American: the Iraq War and the fight for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Why the Left is Wrong on the Iraq War
The left correctly opposed the Iraq War from its inception. President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision made by a President in U.S. history, one for which we will be paying a heavy price for decades to come. It was a completely immoral and illegal action for which President Bush and other members of his inner circle should be prosecuted as war criminals.
But . . . for us to now be pushing for a withdrawal from Iraq in the face of that country’s mounting humanitarian crisis might just be even more immoral. I think this position is a huge error in judgment that the left will regret within two or three years.
Wait! Before you click away and swear me off as just another Bush apologist, just let me lay out a couple of simple arguments that I believe are really pretty reasonable.
First, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the level of sectarian violence in Iraq is inversely proportional to our troop presence there. That is to say, the more troops we have on the ground over there, the fewer dead bodies.
Although the numbers presented by General Petraeus to the U.S. Congress, if they are to be trusted, would tend to bear this out, you don’t have to believe him on this. Every knowledgeable person, both within the military and outside of it, told us that for us to properly secure Iraq after an invasion would require 500,000 to 600,000 troops.
That number isn’t a wild guess. It’s a direct extrapolation of the number of troops sent by President Clinton to secure the peace amidst another ethno-religious sectarian civil war: Bosnia. Almost a decade after then of that war, there are still 20,000 multinational troops policing a smaller population than the city of Los Angeles.
If that basic, quite reasonable assumption turns out to be true, it would follow that as we begin to pull out our troops, the dead bodies of the innocent will begin to pile up in the streets of Baghdad at an increasing rate. What will we do then? Would we just turn a blind eye and tell the Iraqi people not to blame us because we never voted for Bush?
And keep in mind, many of the most visible advocates for a troop withdrawal, including Senator Hillary Clinton the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination (more on that later) voted to authorize this war. Colin Powell’s warning to President Bush before the war (“If you break it, you own it”) applies with equal force to a Senator who made it possible by voting for it. But even for those of us who opposed it from the start and never did anything to help it, as Americans we’re still responsible for it.
Yes, there are those who say nobody knows what will happen if we leave and in any case, it is our troops themselves who are the instigators of much of the violence over there and as we leave, the violence will subside. I think that’s plausible, but my point is, I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s far more likely that the violence will rise as we try to pull out and we’ll be faced with exactly the choice I’ve described above: continue the pullout amidst a mounting humanitarian crisis and possible genocide or go back in try to keep the peace.
While I would agree of course that none of this would be occurring had we never invaded, I think it’s folly to bet that now that we’ve totally ruined their country, that we can now leave and everything will just go back to the way it once was. The plain fact is that the Iraqi government does not have the ability to secure the safety of the Iraqi people. I don’t know that there is anybody who doubts that.
Letting the nation partition itself into autonomous tribally-policed ethnic enclaves is no solution either. There are mixed marriages in Iraq. There are Shiite families who lived for generations in Sunni areas, and vice-versa. In any case, who on the left would accept a totally segregated Iraqi society as our only lasting legacy on that nation?
Come on people! We may not like President Bush and everything that he stands for. We can even say that he wasn’t even rightfully elected. We can say that he acted illegally, without proper authorization, outside of the Constitution, but the fact remains that what he did was done in our name and we are now responsible for it. We owe the Iraqi people whatever we can give them in the way of safety, security and the reconstruction of their society along lines not dominated by tribal and ethnic division.
The thing is, I’m pretty sure that ultimately, the left is going to realize this and we could very easily see, soon after a Democrat takes office in the White House in 2009, a total switcheroo of sides on Iraq, with the Democrats wanting to stay in order to avoid a humanitarian crisis and the Republicans urging a pull-out. It’s not so crazy . . . that was exactly the posture of the two parties with respect to Bosnia and Somalia.
Unfortunately, however, that reversal may cause so much chaos and confusion on the left that it might set our cause back for decades. It would be the ultimate “flip-flop,” an even worse reneging on a campaign promise than the first Bush’s “read my lips” fiasco.
I think the only principled position that we can take right now is that we are committed to doing whatever it takes to bring about an end to the chaos and violence afflicting Iraqi society and deliver a program of reconstruction that at least returns them to where they were before we invaded. If that can be done effectively by reducing our troop presence and pulling out completely, great! But if it proves to be the case that we cannot do so without keeping our troops there and/or sending even more troops, then unfortunately that is our moral responsibility.
OK, that’s it for now. If anyone somehow finds this, I’d love to har your comments. The next entry will be my endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. And no, I’m not a paid staff member of any political candidate or party. It’s just one person’s opinion that Barack Obama could be our generation’s FDR.
Or more accurately, the part of the world that is reading this . . . which is likely to be something close to zero . . . for now.
But hopefully, this blog will eventually find its desired audience: well-meaning American progressives and liberals who are open to new ideas about what the "left" side of the political spectrum should be doing right now.
If you are satisfied with the progressive and liberal agenda as well as the strategies and tactics being used to carry it out, then, by all means, click on . . .
. . . but the rest of us, this blog will hopefully contribute to a new discussion and, ultimately, new directions in thought and action.
This blog reflects a belief that if we need new thinking on the left in order to more effectively bring about the social, economic and political changes that we are seeking.
I think most of us would agree on much of what those changes would look like: ending poverty and building a prosperous middle class; maintaining a healthy and vibrant natural environment; achieving true racial and ethnic justice and equality; making sure that all Americans are able to access high-quality health care, education and housing without being driven into bankruptcy; an American foreign policy that supports peace, human rights and sustainable development. I could go on for pages, but I really think that there’s more consensus here than most of us realize.
We also know that there are very powerful forces within our political/economic system who oppose that agenda. The middle class has been shrinking, while the rich get richer and the poor get more numerous. Multinational corporations rape our national environment at an exponentially increasing rate. Health care, education and housing are being priced out of the budgets of more and more Americans every year. America’s foreign policy has by and large been an agent of war, injustice and poverty more often than not.
But most importantly, however, for purposes of this blog, is that I believe that any objective observer would have to conclude that the progressive and liberal agenda described above has been, for the most part, losing out to the agenda of the rich and the powerful since the ascendancy of the conservative movement to national power with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
And, I would argue, this trend of the last three decades stands in sharp contrast to the trend of most of the decades before it starting with the Progressive Movement and then the New Deal incredible positive changes were being fought for and won in American society. The incredible expansion of the middle class and reduction in poverty, the establishment of great national parks and innumerable local ones, racial integration of schools and public accommodation, quality health care, education and housing becoming affordable to more people than ever before and America leading the world in gigantic wars against the tyranny and oppression of Nazism and Authoritarian Communism.
So the fundamental questions, for me at least, are: Where did we go wrong and what can we do to get back on track?
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. That’s the beautiful thing about a blog – it can be used to stimulate a discussion so that answers can come from a variety of sources. But I have given this topic a lot of thought and study and I think that I have some valuable points to add to the discussion. But the point that I feel most sure about is that we aren’t having enough of these kinds of discussions. We keep beating out heads against brick walls trying to move them.
I’m hoping that this blog will convince enough of us to step back for a moment, look at the brick wall, realize that beating our heads against it will not cause it to crumble down before us, and begin to map out a strategy for going around or over the wall without losing our way.
At one level, this is a very theoretical discussion about ideology and pragmatism, democracy, etc., but I will try to embed that discussion within discussions of immediately relevant topics, i.e. topics that can be impacted upon right now. This is not an academic exercise. Wars are being prosecuted in our names, important elections are impending. We need to stay current and we need to put our beliefs into action whenever possible.
In that vein, I will start with what I would consider to be the two biggest political issues currently facing the left in American: the Iraq War and the fight for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Why the Left is Wrong on the Iraq War
The left correctly opposed the Iraq War from its inception. President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision made by a President in U.S. history, one for which we will be paying a heavy price for decades to come. It was a completely immoral and illegal action for which President Bush and other members of his inner circle should be prosecuted as war criminals.
But . . . for us to now be pushing for a withdrawal from Iraq in the face of that country’s mounting humanitarian crisis might just be even more immoral. I think this position is a huge error in judgment that the left will regret within two or three years.
Wait! Before you click away and swear me off as just another Bush apologist, just let me lay out a couple of simple arguments that I believe are really pretty reasonable.
First, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the level of sectarian violence in Iraq is inversely proportional to our troop presence there. That is to say, the more troops we have on the ground over there, the fewer dead bodies.
Although the numbers presented by General Petraeus to the U.S. Congress, if they are to be trusted, would tend to bear this out, you don’t have to believe him on this. Every knowledgeable person, both within the military and outside of it, told us that for us to properly secure Iraq after an invasion would require 500,000 to 600,000 troops.
That number isn’t a wild guess. It’s a direct extrapolation of the number of troops sent by President Clinton to secure the peace amidst another ethno-religious sectarian civil war: Bosnia. Almost a decade after then of that war, there are still 20,000 multinational troops policing a smaller population than the city of Los Angeles.
If that basic, quite reasonable assumption turns out to be true, it would follow that as we begin to pull out our troops, the dead bodies of the innocent will begin to pile up in the streets of Baghdad at an increasing rate. What will we do then? Would we just turn a blind eye and tell the Iraqi people not to blame us because we never voted for Bush?
And keep in mind, many of the most visible advocates for a troop withdrawal, including Senator Hillary Clinton the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination (more on that later) voted to authorize this war. Colin Powell’s warning to President Bush before the war (“If you break it, you own it”) applies with equal force to a Senator who made it possible by voting for it. But even for those of us who opposed it from the start and never did anything to help it, as Americans we’re still responsible for it.
Yes, there are those who say nobody knows what will happen if we leave and in any case, it is our troops themselves who are the instigators of much of the violence over there and as we leave, the violence will subside. I think that’s plausible, but my point is, I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s far more likely that the violence will rise as we try to pull out and we’ll be faced with exactly the choice I’ve described above: continue the pullout amidst a mounting humanitarian crisis and possible genocide or go back in try to keep the peace.
While I would agree of course that none of this would be occurring had we never invaded, I think it’s folly to bet that now that we’ve totally ruined their country, that we can now leave and everything will just go back to the way it once was. The plain fact is that the Iraqi government does not have the ability to secure the safety of the Iraqi people. I don’t know that there is anybody who doubts that.
Letting the nation partition itself into autonomous tribally-policed ethnic enclaves is no solution either. There are mixed marriages in Iraq. There are Shiite families who lived for generations in Sunni areas, and vice-versa. In any case, who on the left would accept a totally segregated Iraqi society as our only lasting legacy on that nation?
Come on people! We may not like President Bush and everything that he stands for. We can even say that he wasn’t even rightfully elected. We can say that he acted illegally, without proper authorization, outside of the Constitution, but the fact remains that what he did was done in our name and we are now responsible for it. We owe the Iraqi people whatever we can give them in the way of safety, security and the reconstruction of their society along lines not dominated by tribal and ethnic division.
The thing is, I’m pretty sure that ultimately, the left is going to realize this and we could very easily see, soon after a Democrat takes office in the White House in 2009, a total switcheroo of sides on Iraq, with the Democrats wanting to stay in order to avoid a humanitarian crisis and the Republicans urging a pull-out. It’s not so crazy . . . that was exactly the posture of the two parties with respect to Bosnia and Somalia.
Unfortunately, however, that reversal may cause so much chaos and confusion on the left that it might set our cause back for decades. It would be the ultimate “flip-flop,” an even worse reneging on a campaign promise than the first Bush’s “read my lips” fiasco.
I think the only principled position that we can take right now is that we are committed to doing whatever it takes to bring about an end to the chaos and violence afflicting Iraqi society and deliver a program of reconstruction that at least returns them to where they were before we invaded. If that can be done effectively by reducing our troop presence and pulling out completely, great! But if it proves to be the case that we cannot do so without keeping our troops there and/or sending even more troops, then unfortunately that is our moral responsibility.
OK, that’s it for now. If anyone somehow finds this, I’d love to har your comments. The next entry will be my endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. And no, I’m not a paid staff member of any political candidate or party. It’s just one person’s opinion that Barack Obama could be our generation’s FDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)