Blog 4 History

Here’s a piece (click here) that I had a hard time stomaching. But, as always, I will read and point out intelligently written arguments even if I utterly disagree. Mr. Kirstein, a professor of history at St. Xavier University, believes that the “war” in Iraq is “morally wrong.” War is always morally wrong. I never understand this kind of rhetoric. The real question is, was it legal? Was it a just war? War is, sadly, sometimes a political, economical, cultural and/or security necessity. Typically when I find dissenting editorial of the Iraq “war,” the author usually does not accept the premise that we are (or were) even at war after 9/11. So what bothers me most about Mr. Kirstein’s use of history is that he does not present a completely accurate picture. For example, he says, “This was an elective war to project American geostrategic dominance in the Persian Gulf, to encircle Iran, to control Iraqi oil and to reestablish western colonialism in Iraq.” Firstly, because I believe that we are at war with radical Islamic fundamentalists, I consider our need to “encircle Iran,” if that’s truly (and I seriously doubt it) one of the reasons for being in Iraq, a potenitally legitimate one. Obviously, one of our war aims was to control Iraq. It is flat out bad history to say this war has anything to do with oil. That’s the kind of sensationalism I expect from Hollywood actors or smug reporters, not from a trained historian. If our involvement in Iraq had anything to do with oil we would be importing massive amounts of it from Iraq by now and at a very acceptable price. We would be selling it or doing something along these lines. Yet Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia continue to be our top three exporters of oil. Iraq is sixth, and it’s not even a close sixth. At this point, in terms of a war for “oil,” anyone disagreeing would have to come up with some kind of conspiracy theory.

Frankly, we have every right to use Iraq’s oil for our military activity in the region if our true mission is to thwart an autocratic terror driven state and replace it with a democratic one. It is very disconcerting that a trained historian has only the “western colonialism” card to play when presenting this argument. This truly is an indication of the argument’s factual bankruptcy. Trying to link colonialism with today’s situation in the world is a cop-out. This region of the world has refused, for religious and cultural reasons, to accept popular sovereignty, open markets, freedom of speech, civilian audits, and the results of which have been economic ruin and social discontent. These factors are largely involved in the growth of those radical sects that target the United States and the West. We represent, along with the western world, everything they despise. Additionally, it’s often argued that Saddam’s regime should have been left alone, as they posed no serious threat. We know that’s not entirely true. Though it’s hard to argue now that he posed much of a threat. We know that he did have chemical weapons and used them during his war with Iran (when he was the aggressor – as usual – and invaded after we made Iran unstable, frankly) and also on the Kurds. Mr. Kirstein says that’s not true.

The professor states that his “condemnation of this war is bi-partisan and extends beyond the Bush administration.” And I think that’s true. As you get to know me, I hope you’ll find that I am bi-partisan. My above argument does not, I hope, suggest that the United States is not culpable for some of the unrest in this region. We were involved in Iran when we should not have been in the 1970s when we helped to keep the Shah, who brutally eliminated his opponents, in power. We all know our history with Iraq and Saddam. We have made terrible calculations in the Gulf region and on several occasions.

Finally, I want close with Mr. Kirstein best argument. He says, “Democracy must develop from indigenous forces…” He’s right, of course. It also needs stable political and social institutions and I have serious concerns that those will develop enough to allow true democracy to blossom in Iraq. The situation in Iraq was the result of incompetence on the part of our strategic planners, up to and including the President and Vice President. The situation for the people of Iraq after the fall of Saddam and his regime deteriorated. How could they talk about freedom when they were struggling to feed themselves? We leave Iraq, it is almost certain to plunge into Civil War and who knows what will happen. If it does now, we will at least be there to contain it. We have to stay. We have a moral obligation now. Mr. Kirstein does seem to forget that the Iraq people were under the rule of a dictator who brutally put down any dissenters. So, I agree, when so many thousands came out to vote this past year in Iraq, we truly saw the signs of a “indigenous force” at work. Whether it is the right battle, the right war, is still up for debate. But to withdraw now, or in the near future, would be morally wrong and a tragedy.