My title may be a little misleading, everyone already knows that we caused the problems in Iraq. Yet there are still conservatives and moderates out there that believe we must stay to fix the mess we created. I often shake my head at these people and try to explain why that will not happen. People want to rule themselves, angry at the occupier for killing their relatives, easier PR for al-Qaeda, etc etc. Even though I try to exhibit common sense here, I have never stepped foot in Iraq and the closest I got was the Dead Sea (western side). However, writer Brandon Friedman knows what he's talking about, he's been there.
From DailyKos:
The thing you have to understand about an occupation like the one in Iraq, is that much of the violence results from the unrest that occurs when people have no sense of a permanent presence of authority. At the risk of going completely unscientific here, it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher. The people have no need to please or respect the occupier, because they know that ultimately, that occupier will give way to a more long-term power.
In such a situation—where there is no sense of permanent authority—dozens and dozens of groups vie for power. They all want to end up being that more long-term power. And their agendas are varied—as are their methods for causing trouble. I described it this way when I returned from the middle of the Iraqi insurgency:There are a few fighters who have a real political agenda for killing both the invaders and those who would build a new government; there are a few foreign zealots, a few religious zealots, a few more foreign religious zealots, and then there are the rest of them—the overwhelming majority of whom are young, impressionable, male, unemployed, bored, and pissed about, among other things, the fact that their uncle was killed in an air strike or their cousin was killed at a traffic control point for not stopping soon enough. Without this last group there would be no insurgency.
::
And with these types of insurgencies, the longer you stay there the worse it gets. On a long enough timeline, an occupying force will eventually piss off everyone. That’s just what happens, even when you come with the best of intentions.When I wrote that, I failed to include the category of common criminal gangs and thugs—the other major problem in Iraq.
So what happens you don't stay around. America still has the "surge" in Iraq nearly a year later. Oh wait, Britain is pulling their forces out of the Basra area. Would the port city fall deeper into chaos and a bloody civil war? Would the "White Man's Burden" complex fall upon us and force our troops to rush in and protect them?
Or maybe something completely crazy would happen. Perhaps the violence there would fall by NINETY percent. Imagine that, oh wait, anyone could have seen it had they looked at the geopolitical reality on the ground there. As the International Herald Tribune pointed out in their article, it made complete sense to the British on the ground there, as it did for Friedman who spent time in Iraq as well. Thank god I didn't have to go there to get it too.
