Iraq Interview, Part 3

Here is the continuation of my interview on Iraq. Check out Part 1 and Part 2 first.

Q: Is there a political solution to the violence in Iraq?
A: There is nothing that the United States can do politically. In the eyes of many Iraqis, America is the enemy. Many Iraqis view American motives with skepticism. Thus, any political plan that the United States devises won't have much credibility in the view of most Iraqis. That is a difficult realization for American politicians, who are expected to have a plan or at least "do something." The best thing the U.S. politicians can do is work to bring the troops home and refrain from interfering with Iraqi politics.

Q: So there is nothing the U.S. can do politically to help Iraq?
A: The U.S. invaded Iraq, destabilizing the country. Iraqis are distrustful of Americans and America's intentions. Senator Joe Biden has a plan to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions. He claims that at least he has a plan. But having a plan isn't helpful if it's a bad plan. Iraq's population is not divided into the three neat regions that Senator Biden suggests. The relocation effort of numerous Iraqis would most likely result in a grave tragedy, much like the partition of India. A million people died as Muslims traveled to live in Pakistan and Hindus crossed the new border into India. India and Pakistan have been bitter enemies ever since. But in Biden's plan, the three enemy regions would be part of the same country.

Q: Do you believe that the soldiers are doing a good job?
A: For the most part, I believe so. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib contradict that sentiment, but all cannot be judged on the actions of a few. I am far from a military expert, though. The debate over whether to withdraw troops or not relates to the mission, not the performance of the soldiers themselves.

Q: Is the surge working?
A: That is not a yes or no question. In the short term and in a narrow way, the answer is yes. There have been fewer American deaths since the implementation of the surge. However, the surge was a response to an unbelievable spike in violence in 2006. The level of violence has returned back to levels before the spike, which were considered to be intolerably high by most Americans, and of course by Iraqis as well. We must also realize that these levels of violence are determined on the number of American casualties, not on those of the Iraqis.

The violence in certain cities has been reduced by the method of America's control. The U.S. has instituted vehicle bans, which obviously lowers the number of car bombs and the like. Iraqis are stopped every couple of blocks and checked by military personnel. If an Iraqi is acting suspiciously, American soldiers have orders to shoot to kill. So, while these methods have lessened the violence in those cities, it comes at the expense of Iraqi freedom. We were told that this war was fought in part to grant Iraqis the freedom that Saddam Hussein had deprived them of.

Q: Do you support the troops?
A: In what capacity? Financially, I certainly do, through the taxes that I pay.

Q: Do you support the troops in any other capacity?
A: I certainly do not have a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on the back of my car, if that's what you are referring to. Those bumper stickers are extremely patronizing to the soldiers fighting the war. If someone truly supported the troops, they would sacrifice for them. If they were able to fight, they would join the troops, who they claim to support, on the front lines.

The discourse over the war has been dominated by clichés such as the one you asked me about. The belief that we must "support our troops" is a code for saying that we must support their mission. But their mission is not a moral one. It's certainly not the fault of the soldiers; they didn't decide to invade Iraq. When discussing the war in Iraq and America's future decisions, we need to move beyond clichés and look at the issue with some depth.

Here is Part 4 and Part 5.