George of the Jihad

I wrote some post a few weeks ago about Iraq, implying that the United States needs to take a less visible role in Iraq, and a few people in the comments section (particularly Cory) took issue with this stance. We're already there, the thinking goes, and we already desposed the country's leader and instigated a war that destroyed much of its already slack infrastructure, so we have a responsibility to look after the place now.

For the most part, I've always agreed with this thinking. My initial point was more that we should be allowing other groups to take responsibility for the things that we do, maybe even going so far as to train Iraqi police and army officials outside of Iraq, so that everything doesn't seem so tied to US imperialism.

But I'm starting to shift in my thinking. I'm starting to think we should just get the hell out of there entirely. In a recent poll, 71% of Iraqis said they would like America to withdraw completely for their country. If they don't think they need us around, who are we to argue?

I like the way Dan Carol frames the question over at the Huffington Post. He suggests that Democrats pursue one of two strategies on the War in Iraq - either commit fully to the effort, increasing the military budget and extending the influence of the US in Iraqi society (by educating women, rebuilding cities, and so forth), or let the Iraqis vote on whether we stay or go (which will likely result in our withdrawl).

These do seem to be the only two options with any possibility of actually working out. Clearly, the Bush Administration's half-assery isn't going to get the job done. Things just keep getting worse and worse and worse but whenever Rumsfeld talks, everything's all puppy dogs and ice cream. "We're turning a corner," Cheney says. "The insurgency's in its death throes. Osama just called and apologized and we're all, like, totally cool now." Well, Dick, what's taking so long, then?

But what would become of Iraq if we simply cut and run? As I see it, there are a few possibilities, and it's immensely hard to predict. (Particularly for me, a guy who knows a reasonable amount about the contemporary Middle East situation, but isn't exactly a Ph.D. on the subject). Clearly, the whole thing could devolve a bit and become a full-out Civil War, with some faction eventually obtaining some kind of majority control and violently putting down the opposition. Or, with the US removed, other Middle Eastern and European countries may provide an extra boost, and any efforts to reform, even those that are Western in origin, will no longer be tainted by the imagery of the US military.

Post-Abu Gharib, these people just don't trust us any more, and they don't seem particularly receptive to our so-called "aid." In my lifetime, I doubt American relations with the Arab world will ever recover from the events of the past 4 years. I just think our military presence there day in, day out, only serves to make things worse. But hey, I could be wrong.