Throughout our lives, we are establishing, maintaining, and enforcing boundaries. Some boundaries are permanent walls and some boundaries are lines in the sand. Walls for some people are lines in the sand for others and vice versa. My marriage is a wall that limits my intimate affection to one person only, my wife. My property line is a wall that limits the benefits and responsibility for my property to me, my family, and our guests. My lunch menu decision is a line in the sand with very little long term consequences.
Throughout our lives, we also reevaluate our boundaries. Some walls become fences with gates, some fences become lines in the sand, some lines in the sand become fences and some fences become walls. Some alliances and friendships grow while other alliances and friendships weaken. My marriage is a permanent wall that will never change, but my property line will almost surely change when it no longer meets the needs of my family.
When President Bush, and the American people through our elected officials, made a decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as the ruler of Iraq, we established a boundary. Mission accomplished; the primary objective was accomplished when Saddam Hussein took his last breath.
In the process of getting Hussein, Americans established other boundaries. Americans took responsibility for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and Americans took responsibility for establishing and maintaining security for the Iraq people until the Iraqi people are able to maintain their own security.
Some Iraqis have their own boundaries, as do the Syrians and the Iranians. Many Iraqis have built walls to prevent forgiveness of the harms caused by other Iraqis, and many of the Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians have built walls to prevent freedom.
If the American boundary in Iraq is a line in the sand, the American boundary in Iraq will be decimated by all of the historic walls in the Middle East that have been built and maintained for centuries. However, if the American boundary in Iraq is a wall that is stronger than the existing walls in Iraq, then freedom and peace do have a chance.
20,000 more troops and a short term commitment in Iraq isn’t even a decent line in the sand. It’s better than withdrawing troops, and it’s better than no commitment, but it doesn’t give much hope to all of the soldiers and Iraqis who have already made tremendous sacrifices to bring freedom to Iraq. Shouldn’t the American commitment to Iraq be a permanent wall and not an insignificant line in the sand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi David -- I think the problem is that 20,000 is all we can muster. My understanding is that the redeployment already means that our ability to react to other situations worldwide is compromised.
Gates is now proposing to increase the military by 98,000, so it will be interesting to see if they can meet the higher recruiting goals in the middle of a war and with a tight labor market.
In any case, the Malaki government is basically a front for Shiite death squads. That's what the democratic majority in Iraq chose.
Hi Rick,
You’ve been avoiding the church talk huh? : - 0
I am not certain you are right about Malaki, but I am sure that at this point in the process, there shouldn’t be any uncertainty about him.
I should have also written that we shouldn’t place our hope in Malaki to fix all of the problems. America needs to own the major problems until all of the major problems are resolved, which will probably take decades, not months or even years.
The only way we should ever leave Iraq is when we are permanent friends with the majority of Iraqis. We may need to kill a whole lot of the Sunni and Shia militia, and it may take many iterations, to get to that point.
It doesn’t seem possible, but who could have predicted Japan and Germany would be two of our closest allies after all of the Germans and Japanese we killed in WWII?
Hi David -- LOL. Actually, I did think a lot about the Tribes posting and was going to comment about in-group/ out-group morality and how the 10 Commandments and even Christ's teaching appears to have been intended exclusively for the Jewish tribe (later exported by Paul), but I didn't feel I knew enough about what I was talking about.
The Germany/Japan analogy is a really interesting one. There's a good argument that the Middle East is where Europe was at the beginning of WWI. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200701/ferguson-comment)
One reason the Germans and Japanese were quick to be our friends was the alternative: living under the Russian Communists.
Hi Buz,
I’m not 100% sure either.
I wish we could just dust off our boots and walk away, but I don’t see how we can, now or ever, until Iraq is a free country able to defend itself from the Islamic extremists.
Freedom needs a base in the Middle East. Walking away from Iraq now would set history back 50 to 100 years or even longer. It is possible that Radical Islam will be content with controlling the Middle East, but it is most probable that an American withdrawal will embolden the terrorists in a way that endangers other free countries.
I know we can’t force people to be free or live in peace who choose not to live in peace. However, the Islamic extremists in Iraq need to be defeated by the American military or the battle will spread to other parts of the world. We need to make it clear to the terrorists that peace or death are the only two options since they are trying to make it clear to us that submission or death are the only two options.
Hi Rick,
Do you think we could threaten the Iraqis with France if they don’t shape up?
Hi David -- Nope I don't think France is much of a threat. But I also don't think this "surge" can solve anything in Iraq or is really meant to. I think it's fortify our position there while we start bombing Iran and maybe blockading them as well. (With the Sunni Saudis jacking up oil production to meet some of the shortfall.
Interestingly, the new Central Command CINC is, for the first time, not Army or Marine. He's a naval aviator (Adm. William J. Fallon)
Hi Buz,
I am using “Line in the Sand” to refer to a boundary without any real commitment. It is boundary that is easily changed. A “wall” is a much more permanent boundary.
Post a Comment