Sunday, 26 November 2006

• Iraq

  I realize giving my website the title it has may poke curious thoughts of "Jesse's going to get political" or "he's already beaten this dead horse."  I've talked about wars in general, but not really Iraq.  I just got through reading an article that was on Yahoo about the war, and I finally think I'm at a place of realizing something that may sound like everyone else, but hear me explain afterwards:  I finally think Iraq has gotten beyond the US. 

  I think it was one thing to oust a dictator, but it's another thing to utterly redeem a system.  If you know me, you know I'm not past the belief of things being redeemed.  However, the key to redemption is that those needing the redemption must first admit and recognize their need for it.  Within Iraq, and most Islamic nations, there's internal division or civil warring between factions, be they tribal (as is the case in Africa) or the Sunni-Shiite conflict (as is the case in the Middle East) that have both been going on for ages.  Both of these extend beyond the realm of things within the US's sphere of influence, and here is where I'm going to make a marked departure from the media's presentation of controversial wars.  Since these problems predate the US involvement, the US is more like a human hand trying to plug a hole in the Hoover Dam.  These were pre-existent problems that, in the case of Iraq, a dictator like Saddam Hussein was able to stave off militantly.  We could almost say Saddam was "good" for Iraq for that reason . . . almost. 

  What I think is the dilemma as far as the media in the US is concerned is that they can't both point out the faults in the existing system within most Islamic countries (one has to be honest and look at the prevalence of civil strife and war in the majority of these countries) and assert their tender-heartedness to Islam.  I'm not saying that as one who knows any Muslims--I unfortunately do not, as Asheville is a culturally-homogenous city, as well as Ha Noi.  I say that in the media's softness towards Islam religiously versus other religions.  They're sort of "okay" about Judaism as far as it extends to the Holocaust, but are pointed in their opinions about the state of Israel (a little contradictory given the former largely resulted in the latter reoccuring). 

  Saying all that, as much as is reported of "the US's fault" in Iraq, it is in this case similar to the American-Viet Nam War in the sense there was a pre-existing problem before the US ever got involved.  In both wars there was/are national conflict (North-South in Viet Nam, and Sunni-Shiite in Iraq), in both wars there was a prior controlling force that didn't represent the majority population (France for Viet Nam, and Hussein and his supporters for Iraq), and in both wars the US was shifted the responsibility for pre-existing problems in those countries (despite Cold War motivations in Viet Nam, and removing Hussein and terrorist elements in Iraq; let's please just look at what did happen, not speculations on ulterior motives, as the civil war in Iraq makes those "other things" empty and worthless now).  All of these before and upon US involvement.  The problem I find with this is blaming the US actually doesn't deal with the real problem:  why are nationals killing each other?  In a way, it's kind of a curt method of dismissing any admittance of wrong already within the country so nobody needs to say outside involvement is necessary.  Of the conflicts that the US has pulled out of (I feel like I can freely say "the US" because, even with the UN's peace-keeping forces, we're really only talking about the US; that is not to dismiss UN soldiers from other countries who have fought or given their life), the pre-existing conflicts haven't been resolved.  Rather, they're still smoldering.  There may be a few exceptions, but, for the most part, it's true.  With Viet Nam in this, we know what happened upon 1975, but to say the North and South aren't quite distinct would be laughable, war or peace.  I say that as one whose lived in both regions of Viet Nam. 

  So why return to the statement "Iraq has gotten beyond the US"?  Because I'm admitting the problem that doesn't tend to get talked about--or at least that finds its way to me:  people there are not willing to change.  There comes a certain point where you have to say "we've done all we can do, but they're not willing to listen."  One thing I know we're commanded to do with that is leave them to their own devices if they refuse rebuke.  Please note that is distinct from "get the US out because it's the US's fault."  Have we helped with things in Iraq (and even in the past war with Viet Nam)?  In some ways, yes, but was the pre-existing problem dealt with, or merely a manifestation from it?  The branches were cut, but not the root.  I think it's with things surrounding the root it has to be the ones directly involved who must do that--otherwise, it's like helping a baby chicken peck out of its egg. 

  I'd really appreciate hearing other perspectives on this topic. 

  • 12:37 PM
  • 54 Views
  • 0 eProps
  • 0 Comments