h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah, the revolting topic of America's occupation of Iraq. I wish we'd never gone there. But, we are there. So:

If we stay too long, we risk being accused of setting up a puppet government. At least those not happy with whatever government evolves there will accuse it of being a puppet government. Maybe justly, too.

If we get out too soon, we risk being accused of letting the wrong people take over. At least by those not happy with whoever ends up in power there. Maybe justly, too.

It is a no-win mire. It seems that invasion rarely leaves the native people happy, whatever evolves there after. Accusations and fears fester, and nothing ever really goes away. Real resolution comes when people decide their own fate (sometimes). The American Civil War does not keep flaring up, maybe because by the end of it "we" were so spent that we were really willing to accept what came after as an alternative to fighting. We WANTED it to end.

Can you really GIVE freedom to someone else, or is there some process to earn one's freedom--even if another does not deprive you of yours? Are you really free if you don't use your freedom? What benefit do rights and responsibilities give, if not used? The world is certainly a better place if you live in conditions where others do not deprive you of your freedoms, but is that the same as enjoying your freedom? Participation is the difference.

American veterans of the European front of World War II enjoyed the gratitude of the civilian survivors in France and Italy. But America was not the invader. American troops helped the people oust invaders, whereas in Iraq, we are the occupying and invading force. What the people there have lost was largely due to our invasion (electricity, water, sanitation, hospitals, etc.). In World War II, we weren't so directly responsible for ruining what the people had. We were part of getting the ruiners out so the people could regain what they had. The people had a unified identity they wished to continue to have. Do the Iraqis? In Europe, the populations of the occupied lands (largely)joined our troops in repelling a common enemy. By and large, it seems that Iraqis (largely) don't want us there.

Given a magic wand, I'd like to restore at least what the Iraqis had before we arrived uninvited. And get out of the way to let them decide for themselves what to do next. In the real world, I don't know how we might restore their assets without messing up the "ever after" part of their lives (self-determination). I am sorry for that, because either way, the Iraqis come out missing something no one should lack (if they want it, and are willing to earn it). How can we give the Iraqis their freedom, when it is not and never was ours to give?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. For us, I'm afraid it will be capped with asphalt from Iraqi wells and the bones of far too many (American and Iraqi) dead. And for all that, the road will go where the U.S. decides it will go, and that road may not go where the Iraqis want to go.

I hear the current Presidential administration (I'm tempted to use a lowercase p here, because it seems below the dignity of the office) state that critisizing its policies in Iraq is equal to treating our troops with no respect. The picture this brings to my mind is not what the administration hopes, I'm sure. In my picture, the president is a bank robber. The American (and World) public are the police confronting him. The robber has a child (the armed forces) in his arms and is protecting himself with this hostage. This is hardly the kind of action a man opposing terrorism should take.