Boy, I just read this over again and I'm sorry to realize how obvious it is that it was late when I wrote it. Sorry about that. PH, the gentleman quoted in this entry pointed me to this article, written by John Brady Kiesling, a guy who elucidates the importance of legitimacy in Iraq more eloquently than I ever could.

I'll just paste it here...

"President Bush promised the Iraqi people and the international community that our military victory would make Iraq a peaceful, democratic state, a model for its neighbors and a bastion against terrorism. If this was our war aim, our victory did not achieve it. The resistance movement has pinned down our soldiers and contractors as enemy occupiers. If our troops pull out, there will be civil war among a dozen rival factions. If our troops stay, in redoubled numbers to suppress the violence, their hulking presence will doom each future Iraqi government to illegitimacy and failure. So let us consider the alternatives to victory.

In the end a fractured Iraq can be held together only by a man wrapped, like George Washington or Ho Chi Minh, in the legitimacy that derives from successful armed struggle. We should note the ease with which a scruffy young cleric united Sunnis and Shiites against the US presence. A victorious Secretary Rumsfeld could not impose Ahmad Chalabi. However, a retreating US military can designate Iraq's liberator. We must select the competent Iraqi patriot to whom we yield ground while bleeding his competitors. There will be casualties and disorder, no matter how brilliantly we orchestrate our withdrawal. But the overwhelming majority of Iraqis will rally around any man who claims to drive us out, and elections would validate his relatively bloodless victory.

The man on a white horse can bring the UN back as invited guests rather than as our despised surrogates. His police will enforce the law, when ours cannot. His debts will be forgiven, when ours would not. America must swallow its resentment and keep a measure of control by doling out the money to keep the Iraqi state functional. Ten billion dollars a year will buy more counterterrorism cooperation than a military occupation that costs five times as much. And we will let the Iraqis do the work. The most virtuous Halliburton employee is ten times more expensive than the most corrupt Iraqi. Democracy and human rights may take a generation, but our defeat will convince a resentful and fatalistic Middle East that change is possible.

The Kurds, admittedly, will resist any weakness in their US ally. Our parting gift to them will be the southern border for an autonomous Kurdish entity. The price will be US cooperation with Turkey to extort a semblance of respect for the Iraqi central government and the rights of Arab and Turkmen minorities.

We were defeated once, in Vietnam, and the dominoes did not fall. We remained the leader of the free world, sadder but wiser. The ignorance and megalomania that brought us into Iraq are far more dangerous to US security and prosperity than would be the symbolic military defeat that gets us out."

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I think he makes a very interesting point, one worth considering.

Jed,

I enjoyed your comments this week. I, as undoubtedly all americans were, was shocked and disturbed by the photos of the mistreatment of the Iraqi prisoners and the smiling, cocksure soldiers that performed such disturbing acts. Depravity of the human heart is the most horrifying reminder of mankind's distinction from diety.

As you know I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and this latest tragedy reinforced my animosity towards it, yet it also has caused me to reflect on why I found it so fundamentally flawed in the first place.

Aside from the WMD posturing there is, I believe, a compelling argument to be made that a stable democracy in Iraq would help stabalize the Middle East as a whole; certainly a desirable end. However, I have come to conclude that my fundamental aversion to the whole affair stems from the disconnect between the means employed to acheiving that end.

War does not beget peace. Nothing encourages more sinister, dispicable acts so much as war. Men (and women) are forced to explore the depths of human depravity and misery. The absurdity of employing such a monsterous vehicle as war in an effort to acheive such a fragile, delicate balance as peace is astonishing. War may have its place in modern society but initiating a war to acheive a long-lasting peace is not that place.

Finally, I find your comments about Rumsfield very intriguing. You mention that you admire him for many things but you think he should resign. I have a completely different take. I find little to admire in the man and think that his view of the world (along with Wolfowitz and Cheney) is a particularly dangerous one. I think these leaders believe in fundamental, inherent, american moral superiority w/o the need to actually be morally upstanding in our actions; a shockingly arrogant and biased view. However, I think that his resignation now would simply be an effort to appease the Iraqi people which would not in fact happen. They want us out of their country, not simply in their country under new leadership. I definately agree with you in your assessment of the need for a strong Iraqi leader, like Ho Chi Minn. I laughed when people made comparisons to Vietnam early in the Iraq campaign. I'm not laughing now.

In regards to Sparky's comments. Where would we be without military leaders like George Washington who fought in the revolutionary war for our freedoms.

While the Middle east is currently not in a specific war other than that which we have brought upon it, for the last few thousand years war has reigned upon the fertile crescent.

Excellent examples of what war has created such as:Rome was a civilization and culture that was held in place through war. Chinese dynastys created by ruling military factions have made it the China of today. Ancient Egypt held itself together for over four thousand years by destroying or assimilating outside cultures and influences. In the past entire civilizations and cultures were wiped out as one group of people destroyed everything that the other group was.

One must fight for his/her ideals. Of course I do not agree that we should be forcing our ideals in the manner in which we are currently, I do know that war does bring about peace. Apparently just not this one.

Sparky,

Thanks for your comment. I'm amazed at how different I can be from someone I love so dearly. To think that some once thought we were each others' doppelganger.

You said: War does not beget peace. Nothing encourages more sinister, dispicable acts so much as war. Men (and women) are forced to explore the depths of human depravity and misery. The absurdity of employing such a monsterous vehicle as war in an effort to acheive such a fragile, delicate balance as peace is astonishing. War may have its place in modern society but initiating a war to acheive a long-lasting peace is not that place.

First of all, I'll thank Alex for his insights. He's an avid historian and his farsightedness lends genuine strength to his argument. I agree with him that war is a stabilizing force. However, I believe that we need to examine our defintions of the terms we use to describe the conditions that define the state of our lives: war, stability, peace, containment, etc.

Effective governance, shared worldviews, relative economic prosperity and effective diplomacy allow most of the developed world to interact 'peacefully' in that we do not employ brute force to enforce our policies and treaties. For most of the developed world, peace and stability is maintained through a delicate dance in which different groups are alternately favored and snubbed. While bombs aren't being dropped, conflicts are heated and people's lives are affected in very real ways. As we've discussed previously, I think you'd agree that the system isn't entirely just, in that the stability of some is gained at the expense of many others. Nonetheless, I'd argue that the forces of competition and self-determination ultimately push for a broader distribution of wealth (required for education, health care, longer lives) and general stability.

In Iraq, stability was maintained through fear and subjugation. It is estimated that Hussein killed between 300,000 and 500,000 people throughout his reign. That doesn't account for the thousands of lives squandered or lost to starvation under his abysmal management of the Iraqi economy. It is also impossible to quantify the fear of living in a country in which your daughter's wedding might be interrupted by a surprise visit from the president's sons as they've decided to kidnap and rape the bride. If peace is merely defined as a lack of war, I'm not so sure if I want it.

War has a way of bringing out the worst in people, you are absolutely correct. But I pray that we do not forget the honor, valor, and sacrifice evident in the actions of soldiers who risk their lives in efforts to serve their country and liberate an oppressed people. It is for these reasons that I defended the war in Iraq.

As I said in my entry, I'm beginning to believe that our invasion of Iraq was ill-timed. There are many arguments against the war in Iraq, but the fact that war is a destabilizing and violent force is not one that persuades me. There are regimes that should be destabilized and ideals worth fighting for.

As far as Rumsfeld. Most of my admiration for him stems from his confidence and ability to handle the media. I find his candor refreshing and I'm glad that he's willing to firmly defend his positions while being assaulted by the press. His confidence, however, seems to have transcended normal human bounds and would be better categorized as hubris. I seek his resignation because it would indicate that the United States is willing to acknowledge its mistakes in the management of the war in Iraq. I seek this not so much on behalf of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan (who would not notice), but partially in order to restore the tenuous relationship between the United States and its allies. If we are able to fess up and back up Rumsfeld's admition of guilt (re: Abu Ghraib), it will show the world that we are more concerned with the well-being of the Iraqi people than we are with preserving our leaders' reputations.

However, his resignation seems appropriate for another important reason. As smart as Rumsfeld is, horrendous mistakes have been made in this war. I won't go into all of them here. But the fact is that his mistakes have cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our reputation. This all happened under his watch, and he should resign. We have plenty of talented leaders who deserve a shot at Rumsfeld's job. His resignation would not result in a massive disruption of our military.

One more thing. I finally got to read The Economist's take on Rumsfeld's resignation. I agree 100% with its interpretation of the situation.