On Iraq, the Candidates are Frozen in Time
Posted on Jun 21, 2007
By Marie Cocco
WASHINGTON—Cool the rhetorical heat and you uncover a single goal that President Bush, congressional Democrats and the presidential candidates from both parties emphatically agree upon: Iraq, they say, must not become a “failed state.”
You know the riff. A failed Iraq would become a “terrorist haven.” It would be a magnet for mischievous players from throughout the Middle East. It would be another oozing sore in a region already seized with seemingly unsolvable crises. No, the Republicans say, we must keep American troops in the country indefinitely so that Iraq does not fail. No, the Democrats say, we must pull back so the Iraqis can pull themselves together and rescue themselves from this failure.
There’s a problem with this unanimity: Iraq already is a failed state.
“Basically, Iraq is on a course to violent disintegration,” says Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace.
Along with Foreign Policy magazine, the Fund for Peace takes an annual look at nations that are most vulnerable to violence, ethnic strife, economic turmoil and social disintegration, which are the markers of “failed states.” Iraq now ranks second, behind only Sudan, which has a catastrophe in Darfur.
Iraq managed to beat out such violent, economically backward and poverty-stricken nations as Somalia. And it did so with American help. To bring Iraq to the brink, we have invested half a trillion dollars in military spending alone and staffed the largest U.S. embassy anywhere and now have 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground.
Iraq’s descent into violent chaos is known to anyone who watches the news. But it is rarely described, in our hackneyed politics, as anything other than a problematic surge in sectarianism or the handiwork of “insurgents.” In fact, all of Iraq’s social, economic and civic indicators are pointing down, according to the Fund for Peace analysis.
Consider the crises the report documents, but which do not make for good television footage: A food crisis has left half of pregnant women in Baghdad and 60 percent of schoolchildren anemic. The Iraqi government reports that “growing numbers of sick and wounded Sunnis” are abducted from hospitals when they seek treatment. In Basra, “doctors report that rotting piles of garbage left on the streets where children play are causing high rates of typhoid fever as well as fungal and bacterial skin diseases.” There is no officially recognized count of Iraqi civilian casualties.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported Monday that the Iraq crisis has contributed to the first upsurge in five years in the number of refugees worldwide. More than 2 million Iraqis are estimated to have fled the country since the U.S. invasion and another 2 million are believed to be displaced but still living in Iraq. Then there are the bombings, the beheadings, the abductions and the other atrocities the U.S. military presence has failed to quell.
Our domestic political debate is frozen in time—a time before Iraq passed the point of no return. “Events on the ground have moved beyond it,” Baker says.
The Bush White House and, for their part, the Republican presidential candidates, continue to push a military solution that already has been shown to be no solution. The Democrats, including the party’s presidential candidates, want to withdraw combat troops but promote the notion that the factionalized and corrupt Iraqi government can somehow pick up the slack. This, too, is a fiction.
What if American politicians were still debating whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, whether inspections and sanctions were sufficient to control him or whether military action was the only answer? It sounds ridiculous now, because it is.
But so is the subterfuge that Iraq is not already a failure.
The Middle East contagion that has been the greatest fear of foreign policy experts is unfolding amid the U.S. military “surge.” Iran already plays a major role in Iraq’s affairs, Baker notes. Tensions between Turkey and the Kurds have reached the point of imminent conflict. The radicalism that is at the heart of civil strife among the Palestinians and in Lebanon is ascendant.
Baker’s group suggests a “managed partition” of Iraq along sectarian lines as a long-term solution. Who knows, really, what would work?
We know what won’t: Political pretensions that are mired in old-think, and that ignore a more awful reality.
Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at symbol)washpost.com.
© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Email Newsletter
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Previous item: The Forgotten War on Drugs and Election '08
Next item: The Bigots Are Coming! The Bigots Are Coming!
Elsewhere: .
Comments
Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Snapshots of Life and Death in Baghdad
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Dan Uu Noel, June 27, 2007 at 4:11 pm #
There is at least one worthwhile action for the U.S. military in Iraq: provide, secure and enforce safe zones for the few million refugees. This is the least our government can do to clean up the most egregious aspects of the mess it is responsible for.
This operation ought to be called off only either when these refugees can enjoy basic human rights in Iraq without U.S. protection (i.e. once warring factions are tired of settling their scores and the prevailing warriors set up some civilized form of government) or when these refugees are peacefully settled in other countries.
Love,
Report thisBy Mudwollow, June 23, 2007 at 1:52 pm #
Assumptions that we can’t allow Iraq to become a failed state and assumptions that all the candidates are frozen in time can only play if we first assume that Mike Gravel is one of the candidates. The best way we can do this is to writearticles on the subject that fail to mention the existence of a single candidate who is not frozen in time and does not match lip movements with the other candidates. The sooner we writeoff candidates such as Mike Gravel the less likely it is anyone will hear any of the words he is saying. So what if he doesn’t stand a chance. How about some revolutionary spirit. How about a little anarchy if nothing else is available. How about not giving up before we even start. Quit being polite. Quit being appeasing, can’t we all get along, liberals. Impeach somebody. Make a stink. Get behind Mike Gravel. Revolution Uber Allis.
Report thisBy JKoch, June 22, 2007 at 8:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
No, we can’t leave Iraq yet, until we’ve cratered more cities or whipped up the sectarian strife even more. Gotta give that parliament another year to bicker, demure, and recess. The Iraqi forces we “train” need another year to filch enough money and weapons to stage the real sectarian brawl and showdown after we leave.
Yess, and gotta give the US contractors time to finish off the $150 billion construction of the mega-bases. Those bases will need 50k troops, plus pepetual armed supply convoys, just to keep them from falling into unfriendly hands. The alternative will be massive demolition of the forts and equipment. Imagine al Jazeera cameras immortalizing the explosions, followed by the mad rush of jubillant jihadis who dance, scream “Alu-Akbar,” and spray bullets amidst the ruins of barracks, “Little America” PXs strips, officer club swimming pools, fuel tanks, runways, and incinerated Humvees.
Think of all the flack Carter took just for losing an embassy. McGovern’s candor about the Vietnam war did not win him votes in 1972 and prompted the defection of people who became the Reaganites and Neocons. These specters explain why a serious anti-war candidate is either a Quixote or a glutton for defeat.
Meanwhile, by 2009, W will leisurely “stay the course” on the fairways of Crawford. “Ya see,” he’ll say, “Those lib’rals said they would do a better job. Heck, ya see. On my watch, we at least put up a good fight. Now look how bad the lib’rals made things.”
Report thisBy cyrena, June 22, 2007 at 2:57 am #
David
80272 by david on 6/21 at 7:12 pm
..."OTOH I do worry about how the United States will look in the world if it abandons a country whose infrastructure it has destroyed, is that responsible governance”....
This is a perfectly legitimate concern that you have, about “abandoning” this country that we have indeed destroyed, not just it’s physical infrastructure, but it’s EVERYTHING. It’s human infrastructure, the whole breakdown. It SHOULD be a major concern of people of conscience.
The paradox to it all though, is that it has been our MILITARY PRESENCE in that soverign nation, for over 4 years, that has created it all. That’s why there are no other options, and that’s why it’s important that we look at it from another view...the Iraqi view. It’s not at all indicated, that the Iraqis would consider this an “abandonment”. It certainly seems so to US, knowing more now, of how we’ve destroyed them.
BUT...they don’t see it that way, because in reality, they’ve been begging us to leave, for at least 3 years. For many of them, much longer...because they didn’t like being occupied from the beginning. But for the past 3 years, they have been asking us to leave, begging us to leave, doing everything in their power to save what is theirs, and....we just won’t leave.
IF we did leave, the Iraqis could and would take care of themselves, because they had already created a society long before we came along to destroy it. They aren’t stupid, so they are perfectly capable of doing these things, IF we would just get the hell out, let them have their oil, because it is there, under THEIR soil, and they already knew how to work their oil infrastructure, to the extent that they were ALLOWED to work it, under the previous decades worth of US and UN sanctions against them.
I have the utmost confidence that the civil society of Iraq can develope their resources in a way that will allow them to rebuild their nation, and make it properous again.
None of that can or will happen however, until the US and the corrupt Iraqi regime that the US Supports, is out of there. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t send them some money, or agree to buy their oil from them at a fair price, but until we leave, the fire will continue burning there.
That’s what’s been so terrible about watching this for so long. KNOWING, that if you start a fire, and then continue to pour an endless supply of gasoline on it, it will continue to burn and spread. That’s what our military presence in Iraq has done for over 4 years.
That’s why there is no other option.
Report thisBy eric swan, June 21, 2007 at 7:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
regarding the destruction of iraq. that was the plan. grab the oil. production shareing aggrements. destroy, divide, @ conquer. create weak miny states that cannot stand by them selves @ exploite them. OIL!
Report thisBy david, June 21, 2007 at 7:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with Jessica in that Iraq has stolen a lot of America’s focus, and I think that is what frustrates me the most about this. Iraq has sucked in so much of American political discourse (and money) that other worthwhile causes have been left by the wayside. So much so, that when the G8 met and pledged money for AIDS few in the media realized that these new ‘pledges’ were actually reductions of the previous years’ pledges!
Report thisOTOH I do worry about how the United States will look in the world if it abandons a country whose infrastructure it has destroyed, is that responsible governance?
By Jessica, June 21, 2007 at 3:45 pm #
Regardless of the reasons why the United States chose to invade Iraq or even why a US presence remains there today, it is clear that the Bush Administration is putting a lot of its resources into remaining there. To date, the war has cost over $340 billion dollars—money which could have been spent much more wisely and with better end results. It is estimated, for example, that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach. Thus, it is clear that the occupation of Iraq needs to end, and it needs to end now without regard to what this will do to United States interest in Iraq’s oil. There are simply much more important issues that need to be addressed.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 21, 2007 at 2:16 pm #
Eric, from my experience the military doesn’t want it. All the others you mentioned you do, but the poor soldiers, and officiers they’ve had quite enough of it.
Of course when we actually get Sunnis to fight AlQaeda, we regard this as a sign of progress. We should regard it as evidence that we can leave without the worst terrorist-state outcome that our propagandists keep telling us is reason to NEVER leave.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, June 21, 2007 at 12:05 pm #
It really does make a person think twice about wanting to be liberated.
Report thisBy Eric L Prentis, June 21, 2007 at 10:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The nightmare civil war in Iraq, caused by and perpetuated by the US occupying military force, will go on and on. President Bush wants it, the US Congress—deep down—wants it, the US media wants it, the US military wants it and the US military-industrial complex wants it. Only the American people do not want the war in Iraq, and it seems they have no power.
Report thisBy Mark in NY, June 21, 2007 at 9:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only reason for staying is to protect the effort to rape Iraq of its oil revenues. That’s the only “benchmark” the neo-cons care about, and submitting to that rape is the price for continued American protection. Our nation has committed a horrific crime, and its leaders need to suffer a fate as terrible as the one which will surely fall on our victims: the people of Iraq.
Report thisBy Tom Doff, June 21, 2007 at 9:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This might be a good year to freeze (Or ‘cryogenically adapt’) all the candidates, Unfortunately, we don’t have the science necessary to send them back to the past where their positions might make some sense, but, hey, you know, ‘what goes around comes around’, and there might be a time in the future when they would become relevant, and we could thaw them then.
In the meantime, we could proceed full speed ahead with Impeachment for all applicable current government employees, which would pretty much decimate the bureaucracy, resulting in a much smaller government, which should satisfy the republicans, except that many of them would be thrown out of work all at the same time, be walking the streets, and with so many whores street-walking simultaneously, the price of blow jobs would drop precipitously, which would please the republican base, the fundamental evangelicals, and the Catholic hierarchy.
But what’s in it for the democrats? Well, when the White House denizens are incarcerated, by the rule of the constitution, a dem will accede to the presidency. Whether or not she will make an iota of difference remains to be seen, she may only set the precedent of being the first female to have the word ‘wimp’ applied to her personally, and her performance.
But she deserves a chance, and it’s almost a certainty that she’d be an improvement on any of those frozen f*cks.
Report thisBy Michael Boldin, June 21, 2007 at 7:15 am #
Aggressive warfare was punished as a war crime back at Nuremburg - and this aggressive war holds some serious legal and moral implications for all those involved.
The time to end this insanity is now. Not after the next election, and not next fall. Today. Not tomorrow.
Now.
Some follow up reading:
“Top-Ten Reasons to Get out of Iraq. Now!”
Report thishttp://www.populistamerica.com/top_ten_reasons_to_get_ out_of_iraq_now