A reader named Gary has inquired about my position on troop withdrawal, “redeployment,” what have you. Yes, I support a troop withdrawal. The U.S. mission in Iraq is riddled with internal contradictions. American troops are shoring up a Shia-dominated regime that they’re simultaneously doing battle against, in various ways. The Maliki government wants the U.S. out, so it can turn Anbar province into a giant Sunni graveyard without interference. Meanwhile, they’ll accept American largesse in terms of arms and training. And as this remarkable Guardian report makes clear, some among the Sunni insurgents are trying to convince their comrades: “We need to use the Americans to fight the Shia.” The U.S. military is being played by both sides, in other words. Staying, not leaving, is the dishonorable and weak option.
Rhetoric from pro-withdrawal and pro-“surge” politicians has one feature in common: the insistence that the Iraqis “step up” and take responsibility for their own security. Sure, but that skirts the real issue. The Shias want to take responsibility, on their own ghastly sectarian terms. Ostensibly the U.S. troops are there as a brake on the Shias’ worst impulses, but everything the Americans do now to support the Shia forces will be used for maximum ill in the long run. And as I’ve already said, drawing the Kurdish peshmerga into this mess is beyond idiotic.
Right now I’m in an exhausted place where I’d rather read about the conflict than sound off about it. I’m also juggling some increased writing responsibilities — a good development, but one that leaves me less time for extended reflections in this space. I’ll comment as much as I can, however; the appalling humanitarian crisis demands it.
Comments are closed.