SEARCH SITE:

HOME

NEW ARTICLES

Analysis
Teaching Peace from Tales of the City: Peace Education through the Memoryscapes of Nagasaki Patporn Phoothong
Special Report
Reflections of Refugees in Africa Wyclife Ong'eta Mose
Feature
Freedom of Expression Under Threat in Zambia Mariateresa Garrido
Essay
Women’s Political Representation in Sri Lanka: Leading towards Prosperity or Peril Pujika Rathnayake
Comment
The political Crisis of the 2017 Honduran Election Daniel Bagheri S.
Letters
Notes On A Controversy Amardo Rodriguez

RECENT ARTICLES
Analysis
The Unraveled and Disquieting Human Rights Violation of Afghanistan Priya Pandey
Special Report
Nepal's recovery process since the 2015 earthquake Jini Agrawal
In-depth
Challenges and prospects of AU to implement the Ezulwini Consensus: The case of collective security and the use of force Tunamsifu Shirambere Philippe
Policy
The Right to Food Shant Melkonian
Feature
Land of the Golden Pagodas: Checking in on Myanmar’s Peace Process Monica Paniagua
Interview
Douglas Janoff on LGBTQIA Human Rights Luciana Téllez
Essay
Common Things: Communication, Community, Communal Peacebuilding Lina Patricia Forero Martínez
Comment
Periodismo Ciudadano e Internet Gina Paola Parra
Research Summary
Water Security in the Sixaola River Basin Adrián Martinez Blanco and Diana Ubico Durán
Poetry
Reborn Arunima Chouguley
Letters
An Open Letter to the American People: Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age Richard Falk, David Krieger, and Robert Laney

ARCHIVES

Editorial
Last Updated: 06/09/2006
Iraq in the Balance
Peter Krupa

Few people would disagree that George W. Bush’s stated goals in Iraq - spreading democracy and quelling the threat of Islamic extremism - are indeed worthwhile. What most of the world objects to are his methods - invading a foreign country, flipping Europe the bird, and alienating for good any Middle Easterners who were already a little suspicious of the West.

This is something to ponder as we in the United States approach the next presidential elections, elections that will most likely hinge on what should be done about the mess in Iraq. I say this because there seems to be a large and rather rabid contingent of the Democratic Party that is advocating a full-scale withdraw of US troops.

Our troops our dying, Bush lied, the Middle East hates us more every day, and it’s time to leave, the argument goes. Really, I can’t think of a faster way to plunge Iraq into the hellish, full-scale civil war it’s been flirting with for the last year and a half, and I can’t think of a more selfish option either.

Although it would be a great way to win some easy points against the Republicans - and a good “I-told-you-so” opportunity for Europe - the real losers would be the Iraqis. The US got the Iraqis into this mess and, whether you voted for Bush or not, we have a moral responsibility to somehow get them out of it.

Better, therefore, than a candidate who promises wholesale withdraw from Iraq is one who is able to both acknowledge the disaster that the Iraq War is, and reaffirm the US’s responsibility to fix it.

Such a candidate wouldn’t be advocating a stay-the-course, go-it-alone policy: rather he (or she!) would both maintain US troops and investment in Iraq, and invite the rest of the international community to give us a hand. This, of course, will require humility, and probably the endurance of some gloating from certain quarters, but pride shouldn’t be our primary concern here.

Which takes us back to my original point: few people would disagree that a democratic, moderate Iraq would be a good thing in the Middle East. Hating it because it was Bush’s project does no good for the Iraqi people. What they need is peace and democracy, and an American president who can compromise, re-form alliances, and turn Iraq into the world project it should have been in the first place.

Let’s hope that in 2008 there will be a candidate who promises to do just that.

Peter Krupa is the editor of the Peace & Conflict Monitor


Footer