The “Pottery Barn Rule” of foreign policy - “you break it, you own it,” applies to the Democratic Party solution to getting out of Iraq. It’s not our mess, it’s the Bush Administration’s and, while Democrats will likely have to clean it up, they’re not responsible for a “good” outcome no matter what David Ignatius says.
I’m not a foreign policy expert by a long shot, and I agree that the continuing civil war in Iraq is a humanitarian tragedy and crisis. But I also believe that the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, especially American ones, likely makes matters worse - and if we can’t make it better by being there, that’s one rational argument to leave. I’ve also never understood the argument that leaving Iraq before it’s “stabilized” means terrorism will somehow get much worse for the U.S. Haven’t we been told the whole time been that the terrorists in Iraq are non-state actors - many of whom are from foreign lands? Regardless, why does Iraq, as a terrorist haven, matter more than any number of other havens that terrorists could locate to (and in some cases are already located in)? And if terrorists can move about elsewhere, what is the compulsion to spend endless American blood and treasure in Iraq instead of other locations where we might be more effective (or at least more safe)?
Look, I know it’s about the oil but, skipping the substantial moral issues involved, unless the U.S. is prepared to stay in Iraq much longer than anyone ever pitches to the American public, we might as well get out sooner than later and save American lives and money. That’s not saying that immediate withdrawal is a good choice - it’s saying that it is likely our best choice and has been for a long time.
Who should Americans blame for the U.S. not having any good choices in Iraq? It wasn’t poor planning by the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Republicans supported the Bush Administration’s poor and non-existent planning. They broke it - they own it.
Post a Comment