Brain Fertilizer

It's been a year since we invaded. Recently, I've begun to think I have a different view of Iraq than most people. At least, I haven't seen anyone express some of my basic assumptions about our presence there. I'm going to run this up the flagpole and see who salutes, m'kay?

I think the first mistake people make is confusing our invasion of Iraq with our continued presence there. To me, they are two largely separate levels of the same war.

I am firmly convinced that the reason we invaded was specifically to make the United States and the world safer. In the wake of 9/11, we needed to

If you look at Libya's actions with coming clean on WMD, it has done that.
If you look at how violence has declined in Israel/Palestine, pretty much simultaneously with the cutting off of Saddam Hussein's $25,000 payment to families of suicide bombers, it has done that.
If you look at the number of known terrorists apprehended or killed in Iraq, it has done that.
If you look at the number of terrorist training camps in Iraq that have been shut down, it has done that.

We could leave right now and have accomplished the most important and most pressing mission: removing a terrorist supporter/enabler. To me, that's why the "Mission Accomplished" banner was and still is entirely appropriate. We did what we needed to do for this stage of the GWOT.

However, one thing you'll hear (read? -ed. whatever -nathan) me harp on constantly is "taking the long view". In the long term, we need to show the forces for instability in the world that we have the determination to risk our blood and treasure to oppose them, and we need to ensure that we do not lightly surrender territory to the forces of chaos.

So if you accept that Iraq's invasion was necessary as a major battle in the GWOT (which I know many people do not), then you can see that as meeting a tactical or operational goal: it hurts the enemy's ability to fight or hurt us. But remaining in Iraq is a stregic goal, or even a goal of Grand Strategy. In moving pieces around the world in our real-life game of Risk, we must retain Iraq as a headquarters of stability. Strategic goals take some time to bring about. Strategic goals mean breaking the enemies will to fight. Iraq alone won't do that, no. But if we stay the course there, if the people begin to actively back us, if their police and military begin to feel it is worth their life to oppose the foreign fighters and thugs, then the forces of instability will have to retreat and choose other battlegrounds.

When I use the terms forces of instability and forces of chaos, I am trying to drive the point home that there are large swaths of territory in the world where the rule of law does not prevail. There are places in which only the strength of your arm, the accuracy/reliability of your weapon, and the ruthlessness of your demeanor keep you alive. There are places where lives are bought and sold like livestock, where you can buy and sell nearly anything, where slavery is in practice, where a person could hire a private army and establish a personal fiefdom. Robber Barons are alive and well in places like Somalia, parts of Indonesia, the Phillipines, Central Asia, and the States/areas bordering the Sahara. It's easy to forget that government does not extend into the shadowlands, especially when you live in the wonder that is the United States. While we argue about whether homosexuals can get married or not, and how youth of today will pay for the elderly to live a life of luxury, children are sold to spend their lives for the amusement of the depraved.
Iraq was one of these lands of shadow. It still is, in places...but those areas are shrinking, for the most part. It isn't a smooth, inevitable process, obviously.

We in the West, in our plenty, ignored the plight of the weak and the meek in these Gray Territories (I believe that's the official term...). It is truly ironic that it took a mere 3,000 deaths in the United States to wake us up to how truly dangerous the world is beyond our doorstep; I'm sure more than that die every day at the hands of those who scorn compassion and civilization. It is truly ironic that it is a conservative President who leads the charge to clean the muck out of the world before it can swallow new locations. It is truly ironic that the "liberal" fight this process tooth and nail, that they care nothing for the suffering in the rest of the world until they can first ensure that US jobs won't be outsourced and taxes can be raised on the evil, selfish rich.

Which is unfair, I know, because humans are not capable of maintaining a tight focus on all issues, and it is human nature to notice and care more about things that affect you directly.

However, these are the terms upon which I argue for the GWOT. These are the terms upon which I base my support of President Bush's actions and goals. These are the terms upon which I am proud to serve in the US military: we care about more than just our own petty interests.

Tell me how defeating the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is more important than this. I dare you.