What’s a war skeptic to do?
I was alerted to a really good article today by a friend and loyal reader, let’s call him Maverick, which discusses how critics of the war in Iraq can and should go about approaching the war now that it’s in full swing. (Thanks for the heads up, Mav)
The piece, which appears in today’s Salon and was written by Joan Walsh, largely mirrors my own take on personal doubts and skepticism leading up to the recent invasion.
“I’m not an antiwar Democrat; I’m just anti-this war, at this time,” Walsh writes. “I think Saddam is a bigger menace than most of the left seems to; I think his flouting U.N. resolutions merited a tough international response; I thought the world was on its way to crafting one when the Bush administration pulled the plug on diplomacy. Yet even though I opposed its timing, once the war commenced I reflexively wished it would be over quickly.” Sounds to me like Walsh is a “Tough Dove.”
I couldn’t agree more with each of these points. In fact, Walsh does an excellent job explaining why the rabidly anti-war left hasn’t been acting in the most productive of fashions.
“The antiwar left loses me with talk of a quagmire in Iraq,” Walsh says. “Some of it sounds like wishful thinking, and it will likely be proven wrong: This war will probably be won in months, not years, and it could still end in only weeks — though the battle for Baghdad is so fraught with potential nightmares it makes realistic predictions impossible. (Coalition forces still do not decisively control any Iraqi city.) Yet all week the lefty news site Common Dreams has been awash in stories about the coming U.S…. I recognize that reporting bad news isn’t the same as enjoying it, but some on the left seem to be wallowing in it, a little too self-satisfied that the war has seemed to be going badly. ”
At the same time, Walsh acknowledges that there’s a strong temptation to “want the cakewalk conservatives to pay for their hubris politically.” She’s brings up a good point that I think many might be afraid to admit. The neocons made deceptive promises, waged war under misleading pretenses, and all but guaranteed the war would be a “cakewalk” as the Iraqis would welcome us as “liberators.” Considering how wrong they were, there is a certain appeal to taking pleasure in their mistakes.
Yet I continue to believe that is a temptation that should rejected. No matter what I think of Bush or his plan, it’s not possible for me to root against the United States. Not in this war, not ever. If our government makes a mistake, it’s a mistake that then belongs to all of us. If Bush fails, we all fail. If the war goes badly, the negative consequences are not limited to volunteer troops in the field — they’ll be felt by everyone, around the world, whether they supported the war or not.
As Maverick noted in his email to me, it’s often tough to “walk the line” when it comes to supporting the troops, which I think everyone does, and supporting the war, which is far more divisive. He’s completely right; that’s what makes considering the war as a skeptic so challenging.
Walsh notes that those of us who doubted the benefits of this war “did so not because we’re Saddam lovers or Bush haters or we’re secretly French; it was because the difficulty of winning the war, securing the peace and rebuilding Iraq required an international coalition.” Conservatives and the president’s allies seem to think it’s much simpler. They too often seek to tar those with reservations about this war as a “traitor” or “un-American.” Not only are these insults ridiculous, they demean political discourse.
Nevertheless, Walsh wonders aloud what those who agree with her approach should do now. Dennis Kucinich, the odd presidential candidate, says we should pull out our troops immediately. This won’t work. Others think we can stay silent so as to not become the victim of Republicans’ rhetorical assaults. Yet, as Walsh notes, silence won’t buy political safety. The “GOP attack dogs” go after political opponents no matter the circumstances. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for example, supported a House resolution declaring her “support and appreciation” for Bush’s war efforts, yet neocon leader and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol still managed to accuse her of hating conservatives more than she loves America.
Walsh explains that Democrats must be prepared to offer diplomatic solutions to end the war should the opportunity avail itself. She also rightly notes the war’s critics must reject Rumsfeld’s plans for indefinite U.S. military control of post-war Iraq, and urge the administration to follow the proposals embraced by Colin Powell and Tony Blair that call for civilian cooperative control and the involvement of international bodies like the U.N. to oversee the relief and rebuilding process.
And finally, war critics must continue to “hope for an American victory, one that results in as little loss of life and as much freedom for Iraqis as possible.” Sounds like good advice to me.