The Firehouses in Baghdad

I made the point here several months ago that regardless of whether or not one supported the initiation of war in Iraq, the aftermath of that war and the rebuilding of Iraq, preferably in representative republican mold, was a burden that should unite Americans. The process of rebuilding Iraq for the Iraqi’s contained elements dear to the foreign policy efforts of both the left and the right. It beckoned the issues of human rights and humanitarian aid generally championed by the left, and yet led our nation towards a potentially profitable and politically palpable relation with a new republic in the Middle East that could guarantee mutually beneficial trade relations and an introduction of stability, a government focused on anti-terrorism and electoral self rule in a Muslim Arab country. I felt that this could be a win-win for both political parties, something that could re-unite our nation behind a goal of altruism and the step by step destruction of international terrorists and the regimes that protect and promote them. Like so many political opportunities for unity in the United States, I fear this too has been squandered in an election year that teeters between candidates who live somewhere between September 10 and September 11.

The liberal that many conservatives love, Christopher Hitchens, wrote an article for Slate last week that sums up this point very well in relation to the election between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Mr. Hitchens spoke specifically of the surfacing debate amongst those on the left that money being spent in Iraq was being done so to the detriment of services Americans need. Specifically, he cited Senator Kerry in a recent speech:

“…on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?”

He counters the debate proposed by Senator Kerry by saying:

“The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?”

Aside from adding the slippery slope argument that without continued American intervention in Iraq, the country would emerge from the dictatorship of Hussein in a more dangerous state than when we entered it, he offers a moral justification later in his piece that is potentially more persuasive for those on the left:

“A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.”

As Senator Kerry established this argument centered on a false dilemma of either helping Iraqi’s or helping American’s, he played on the nerve of isolationism and some would say xenophobia that media pundits tend to pin to the policies of the Buchanan wing of conservatism. One comment on the slate article even went so far as to state that: “it was also about something even less appealing. He spoke to a never-acknowledged but widely observable sentiment that an American life is simply worth more than an Iraqi one.”

Senator Kerry’s opinions on Iraq have often offered something for everyone, whether it was increasing funding of our efforts in Iraq, increasing foreign involvement through diplomacy, expanding the size of the military or not using military intervention in what should be diplomatic disputes. If I had not worked in politics before, I could write this statement off as a miss-spoken phrase and accept that he was over excited at the sight of a very supportive crowd that cheered everything he said. Mr. Kerry is too well crafted for this however, his calculations as a politician and a speaker signal that this was an intentional attempt at garnering support from some of the “God Bless America, and no one else” crowd that had come to support him that day.

Ultimately, our success in Iraq will not be judged in whether or not we should have gone to war, but will be decided by the very question that Presidential candidates often ask of Americans, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The question, when directed at Iraqi’s, will answer how successful we were in our efforts to establish peace, prosperity and freedom in a region of oppression. We will be able to answer the question for ourselves years from now when we determine whether or not Iraq served as the training ground for terrorists that Al-Qaeda wishes it to be, or whether it was the straw (or rather bale of hay) placed upon the camel, that ultimately broke its back. I continue to believe that the forces to my north are bravely drawing the terrorists into the open and killing and capturing them. I continue to believe Iraq will be free in the year to come and that the freedom Iraqi’s enjoy will have a contagious affect that may spread throughout the region. And I can't help but think that in the end, we will all be much better off with a free Iraq that engages the world than with an oppressive murderous tyranny at its seat of power.

Comments

[Barb]

You make a powerful point. I have supported the war since the beginning, and don't feel that I have any cause to change my views. But what is much more important is how we all will continue to use each day to improve on where we stand Now - not waste time arguing how we got here.
It's not a zero-sum game, because our investments in a strong and democratic society in Iraq will pay dividends in the future.
Keep up the great work, Chris!

[Kathleen A]

Chris - trying to explain 'future investment for peace' to people is a difficult task. Thanks for helping me with the well-thought out answers.

[Pat in NC]

Kerry's comment about why are we opening firehouses in Baghdad seemed to get a good response from the delegates. I could not help but wonder when did Americans become so selfish that we would not help a country in need. At the same time he is going to redistribute American wealth to those unwilling to work for it. I could even support no federal tax for persons with incomes of less than $15,000 but this is not what he advocates. He is buying votes by this
promise of providing anything and everthing to Americans while complaining about the deficit incurred by protecting our nation and then helping to rebuild nations that will no longer harbor terrorists.

[Brian H]

Here's an intelligent response to the 'Are Iraqis better off?' question.

[Brian H]

Oops. Html didn't take. Here's the link in raw text:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=234050&attrib_id=7511

[Sweet N Sassy]

Thank you for a well thought out response from someone who knows the reality of why we truly need to be there. You have shared with me in a way that I will no longer have to wonder but will be at total ease in the matter and can feel comfortable in how I answer this if ever asked again why I feel the way I do. Again Chris thanks for all you do