Voter's Guide to the Iraq War

As we approach November, US Presidential candidates are testing their ideas and themes on primary constituencies and potential American voters - unfortunately at the same time as the nation is trying to decide its future course in Iraq. The probability is quite small that a unified concensus on this critical national security issue will emerge from the partisan debates to come because so many issues and personalities are involved. Unlike a parliamentary system that must survive votes of no confidence, our representative democracy must usually follow presidential/congressional calendars to effect fundamental change in major issues like war and peace. What is a voter to do?

It is now becoming clear that neither the Iraq Study Group findings nor the last election's democratic party victory was suficient to change direction in Iraq and the President's "Surge" has been successful politically in delaying any action until after November 2008. It may be useful to provide a few "points of light" to help sort out a rational way forward in the murky speeches to come - a voter's guide to the Iraq War.

The first thing we must understand is where we are in Iraq and how we got there. As Kierkegaard observed, "life can only be understood looking backwards; but it must be lived forwards". The best way to do this is to separate the simplistic rationales offered by political leaders, strategists, media and pundits from the vital interests of all participants.

STEP #1: Listen to candidates that understand the US situation in Iraq - how and why we are there and what our vital national interests are in the Mid East. Candidates who continue to re-play rationales for our invasion of Iraq ("evil dictator", "weapons of mass destruction", " Al Qaeda/terrorism sanctuary", etc) either do not understand the situation or are looking for political advantage using the old media themes and failed rationales of the architects of this war. To continue using these patently untrue or irrelevant rationales for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is like presenting the Vietnam War as a response to the Tonkin Gulf naval non-engagement or describing the Spanish-American War as caused solely by public outcries to "Remember the Maine". National leaders use these incidents to justify actions deemed in the national interest but too complex and therefore insufficient for widespread political support. The candidate who understands the geopolitical reasons for the Iraq War will be much better able to steer a course through these dangerous seas once elected. Those who replay irrelevant rationales, pressured by media and pundits looking for evidence of inconsistency and illogical thought, will be damned to relive them if elected in order to be consistent - the hobgoblin of small minds.



Although still not widely discussed, even in full length books published over the last five years, our "pre-emptive war on Iraq" was a risky gambit to establish a democratic state in the middle of the middle east that would fundamentally change the power relationships in the region to US advantage. A successfully functioning Iraq not only eliminates a proven threat to oil-rich neighboring allied states, it directly addresses the underlying cause of fundamentalist Muslim extremism - the unmet expectations of Muslim societies living in the failed states of the region and facing rampant secular globalization. These traditional, tribal societies - many with half their populations under 20 years old - must often choose between rootless modernism and fundamentalist Islam. Islam offers both a refuge from godless secularism and a prescription for living in an Islamic state regulated by religious doctrine.

The 9/11 terrorists have been studied in great detail. They were not professional terrorists but rootless young men looking for a cause - recruited by an organization dedicated to establishing states that live by the dictates of Fundamentalist Islam. These people, more accurately called "Islamic fascists" or "militant Fundamentalist Muslims" than "terrorists", reject secular, pluralistic modes of living and believe it is their religious duty to create a world ruled by the strict dictates of Fundamentalist Islam. Such fringe groups have existed throughout human history and would normally be ignored or rejected by civilized society. Globalization, however, makes such doctrines a global menace.

The end of the Cold War resulted not in a "New World Order" but the disorderly realignment of the bi-polar world fueled by global economic interdependence. The Iraq War is the first war of globalization - the second if you count Bosnia. These conflicts occured on the frontier fault lines of the bi-polar world. The choice for many traditional societies is now between secularism or religious fundamentalism rather than capitalism or communism. In the failed states of the Middle East fundamentalist Islam is alluring prospect. Like AIDS, this malignant doctrine infected the World rather than a local population. The failed states of the Middle East could not contain it. Iran rejected modernism and the fight continues in other states of the region. Al-Qaeda established its base in the failed state of Afghanistan and decided to attack the great satan to drive it out of the Middle East, where it had established bases that protected the global need for oil but also promoted secularism in the states of the region.

The US pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was a response to these attacks and attempts to establish a functional secular state in an area containing the second largest deposit of proven oil reserves in the world. If successful, this gambit directly confronts direct threats to the United States (al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, nuclear Iran, etc) and also has important influences on the Arab-Israeli Conflict, our Saudi Arabian ally, Afghanistan and the other failed states in the region. To transform Iraq from an expansioinist, disfunctional buffer state of tribal Shiites/Sunnis/Kurds set up by the British to protect the Suez Canal to a stable, democratic nation allied with the United States is our objective in Iraq. Candidates who understand why we are in Iraq and what the US national interests are in the region should be listened to more intently.


STEP #2. Support candidates that understand the stakes and current situation in Iraq and present a logical argument for the best way forward for achieving vital US national interests. This step is very difficult because conflict situations are inherently difficult to assess with any precision and success for any strategy depends on both enemies and allies. The enemy, thankfully, has proven itself to be implacable but inept in employing terrorism, both in Iraq and globally. Terrorism is an effective tactic, as the Vietnamese and other insurgencies have demonstated, but must be employed surgically to influence target audiences. Although it remains to be seen if killing 3,000 Americans in their homeland was a wise decision by the al-Qaeda leadership, history in the form of Pearl Harbor instructs otherwise. Blowing up American embassies, barracks and ships were not having the desired effects but awakening the sleeping giant and being driven from Afghanistan to the Pakistani Tribal Areas must not be viewed positively by the enemy. Provoking the overthrow of Saddam Hussain must be seen as a positive, however, and must have caused jubilation in the cave. A secular Baathist regime in Iraq was just the kind of failed state that al-Qaeda was targeting and provides another infidel invader against which to wage jihad and recruit, train and bloody new global jihadists. On the other hand, the terrorist mistakes of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia (gruesome beheadings, indiscriminant violence, fomenting civil war for their own cause, killing journalists, etc) and their fundamentalist doctrine are alienating even their Sunni allies in the region. On the global front, al-Qaeda has inspired attacks in Spain and England but its operational, financial and intelligence networks are everywhere under attack. Al-Qaeda continues to misuse terror and alienate the audiences that would support its cause, even beheading a journalist in the process. Although improving, it is reduced to calling for world-wide conversion to Islam and inflicting as much punishment as it can in hopes of US withdrawal from the region.

Candidates who can see these realities and chart a clear course in the Middle East are to be supported. How can US interests in Iraq be furthered at this point? The candidates themselves must indicate the way forward but any strategy should have the following attributes:



Vital US interests in the region must be supported.



The Iraqi solution must be regional.



Militant fundamentalist Islam must be seen to be defeated in Iraq.



The US objectives in Iraq must be achievable and worth the long term costs in US blood and treasure.



STEP#3: Vote for candidates that who chart the best course for our country not just in Iraq. There are many important issues facing us in the near future: medical care, income inequality, immigration, social security, as well as security. Although our republic has difficulty in decisively addressing any major issue, it is an uncanny way of moving forward by balancing pluralist interests and using the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government for the greater good. Choose wisely.