Can Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki bring stability to Iraq?

Yes

1 of 3

by Emily S

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Going eastbound on Route 30 near the depressed steel city of Mansfield, OH, a couple of years ago meant viewing on the right a large, brightly-colored billboard: "Stop Iraq-nam." So much for supporting the troops.

One of the critical mistakes that America has made in its collective history was not, on the contrary, getting involved in Vietnam. Mistakes were made thereafter, and heavily, on the side of the American people. Yes, we see some parallels today - rallies held on college campuses nationwide speak of the kind of anti-war rhetoric that made Kent State famous those years ago, CBS reporters are being paid to display the body count (though not even a fraction of what it was in the Vietnam era), and in the balance hangs an election year to decide the fate of the free world. Just like in '68, anything that does not include pulling our troops out of foreign countries just does not rate with campaign speech writers. Everywhere you go, it appears that the whole nation is brainwashed with the idea that, yes, failure is an option. Our greatest mistake: our unabashed willingness to leave other nations defenseless without making an attempt to pick up the pieces first.

Let's delve into this issue a little further, from the logical standpoint: agreed, the "terrorists" don't particularly care for us. In fact, they have stated that it is consistent with their religion to wreak "death to all infidels!" - i.e. us in the US. Since we have access to their media, al-jazeera tv, it would be reasonable to assume that our enemies in the Middle East have access to the American media, namely CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, you name it. Could we also not agree that the American media has, since the "War in the Livingroom" that Vietnam spurred, become more and more invasive, more and more critical of American politics? Indeed. Consciously or unconsciously, it appears that we have handed our so-called political play-book to the terrorists. The dissension in Congress, the back-stabbing primaries, the underfunding of the military... we are fooling ourselves if we believe that a) the terrorists are completely oblivious to these problems, and b) that they are not somehow using this information to their advantage. Of course the terrorists want a democrat in our office; it would be the best thing to happen to al-Qaeda since Bill Clinton.

I'm sure that anyone can name a democrat that they know has supported a massive troop mobilization out of the Iraq area. Most could even, I venture, be able to name one within their own jurisdiction.

Let me pose this hypothetical situation; it's March 13, 2009. Congress, with a swelling democratic majority, has just voted landslide-style in favor of a complete troops pullout of Iraq by December 17, 2009. If I were a terrorist, having access to American C-Span and the like, when would I plan my next suicide bombing raid of Iraq?

A) Before December 17, 2009
B) On December 17, 2009
C) After December 17, 2009
D) Never. If the US is pulling out, I guess we've already lost and should hide away in our caves for the remainder of our lives.

I hope that most logical answer, at least from the point of view of the terrorists, is plainly obvious.

If we decide as a nation that we are going to leave the Iraq area without establishing an acceptable amount of stability in the area, you can promise yourselves that our children will refer to the central spot on their world maps as "Lake Iraq." The entire area will be divided and conquered by sectarian violence. Some of you may argue that this is already in the works; I say to you that you've been listening to too much CNN and not talking mono-a-mono to enough of the troops. As it stands right now, the Iraqi people are on the whole content with the US and allied presence in their nation. This isn't to say that this will hold true over time, however. If in a couple of years we give the Iraqi people the impression that we came in and left them high and dry, without acceptable means to protect themselves against massacre and obliteration, you can bet that we will have created more enemies than what it's worth. America already has enough enemies, regardless of the reasons. Enemies are not something that we need more of.

Finally, how does this come full circle to the leader of Iraq, Maliki? I have no reason to think him a bad or ineffective man; he's taken on a job that not one of us in our cushy white-collar cubicles would dream of undertaking, certainly given that we generally value our lives. That being said, he cannot do the job alone. Yes, we Americans like to tout how we are the "leader of the free world," but doesn't the term "leader" imply one who steps up to the plate even without ever being asked? If we leave Maliki and his people high and dry, so to speak, then we are shirking our duties to an utterly disgusting and perverted degree. We should be embarrassed to call ourselves "leaders" and "free." Yes, I know that Maliki can do it, but not without our constant and persistent help. It's just not feasible. These people have been living modern-day Holocaust for decades. I don't know about you, but one man cannot save one nation entrenched in hatred and despair in one day. To tell Maliki through our petty acts of Congress that this is what we and the rest of the world expect from him would be so monstrously immoral that there are no words in existence to describe its despicable-ness.

If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Yes. Stop Iraq-nam.

Learn more about this author, Emily S.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.