In an opinion piece last week, Nate Goralnik argued that the United States' ability to provide relative stability in Iraq is all that is preventing a genocide on the scale of Rwanda or Kosovo ("Sit-in for a slaughter," April 13). Consequently, Goralnik continued, U.S. troops should remain in Iraq until a unity government has been formed and peace has been achieved. While Goralnik shrewdly illustrates the chaos and corruption currently wreaking havoc in Iraq, his analysis fails on two levels. First, the United States has not provided stability so far, but in fact has idly watched Iraq as it has collapsed into chaos. Second, there are no indications that things are turning around, but plenty of signs that the situation is worsening. While there may be a very small possibility of unity in Iraq, the cost of such peace, paid for with American lives, would be enormous. The correct response to these sad truths is not continued U.S. presence in Iraq but the pressing need for withdrawal of American troops.
The United States has been unable up until now to prevent civil war. Contrary to Goralnik's claims, civil war is not the future of Iraq, but the present. A month ago, retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina told ABC News, "We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in." More recently, the implications of the civil war have taken on new meaning as over 1,400 lives were lost following the bombing of the Askariya Mosque in late February. Yet Goralnik contends that the United States has provided stability. In his example, Goralnik points to the supposed consensus reached among Iraqis critical of the performance of U.S.-backed Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. However, just two weeks ago, at the same time as a prominent Shiite cleric was in the midst of denouncing al-Jaafari in the Baratha Mosque, the holy site was ripped by explosions from three suicide bombers killing 71 people and injuring over a 100 more. Sunni lives were claimed in retaliatory violence by Shiite militias which most Sunnis believe to be sanctioned and supported by the Shiite controlled and U.S.-backed Interior Ministry.
Exacerbating the violence is a persistent lack of political unity. While al-Jaafari receives support from the United States and won the elections held in Iraq some four months ago, Newsweek reports that leading Sunni and Kurdish political groups have refused to cooperate with him. In recent weeks Shiites have also called for him to step down. Hopes for stability, all acknowledge, rest on the future of the new parliament. Unfortunately, while voters chose the parliament on Dec. 15 of last year, the legislature met briefly only once last month. Scheduled to meet this past Monday, the parliament session was delayed in reaction to attacks nationwide that killed 35 people the day before. This is yet one more setback in Iraq's increasingly fractious political atmosphere. Clearly, American efforts at stabilization and unification have failed, yet some continue to believe that unity will win out.
To find evidence that America's future position in Iraq will be worse than its current one, simply look at a quote provided by Goralnik in which Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies observes that the events in Iraq are omens of "a creeping polarization of Iraq," marked by a "slow, steady loss of confidence, a growing process of distrust." America's presence has led to chaos, not stability. The notion that our continued presence will lead to peace and unity is naive and dangerous to our nation's health.
The Shiite militias that frighten genocide watchdogs with ethnic cleansing are not waiting for a U.S. withdrawal. Neither are Sunni terrorists who just last weekend killed another 50 Iraqis. American troops are not preventing a civil war, they are merely dying in it. In last weekend's attacks, four American soldiers were killed, raising the number of dead American soldiers in April to 47, compared to 31 in March, an alarming spike that should raise concerns here at home. Here are the trends in Iraq: an increase, not a decrease, in the number of terrorist attacks and Iraqi deaths, and an increase in the number of American troop deaths. Unfortunately, a determined group of Americans still believe that American troops can prevent more of the same.
Could the United States eventually force into place a stable government in Iraq? It is certainly possible, but very unlikely. Historical evidence supports withdrawal. Obviously every civil conflict should be looked at individually, but it can be instructive to examine U.S. history when investigating the one in Iraq. In Vietnam, after many years of troop support and economic expenditure, Americans came to terms with reality and withdrew. The Vietnamese were hostile toward the nation that murdered and tortured its citizens in events like the My Lai massacre and resistance to an American designed government was strong, fierce and effective. However, even if America could eventually prod Iraqis into agreement and peace, how many more thousands of lives would it cost America to find out? I am not willing to support such an experiment supported by so little compelling evidence, past or present.
Ben Bernstein '09 is rooting for the Confederacy.
