Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Of Course

Of Course

Last updated on: November 15, 2004 at 1:41 pm by Fred Clark

10 Comments

Of Course 2004-11-15T13:41:10-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In a guest editorial last week at Dr. Cole's place, William R. Polk takes an unflinching look at the reality-based options remaining in Iraq.

Polk is not campaigning for office, so he doesn't need to gloss over the situation in order to appear "optimistic":

Iraq is in a terrible condition, its society has been torn apart, scores of thousands have been killed and even more wounded, its infrastructure has been shattered, dreadful hatreds have been generated. Today, there are no good options — only better or worse alternatives.

Polk sees three possible courses: 1) "staying the course;" 2) "Vietnamization;" and 3) "to choose to get out rather than being forced."

Option No. 3 is often described/caricatured as "cut and run." This phrase has proved remarkably effective as the ace that trumps all other argument. Most of the staged "debates" on cable news have ended when this card was played:

Talking Head 1: … any responsible military engagement needs to have some idea of what constitutes victory. There needs to be an exit plan …

TH2: But we can't just cut and run, of course. Surely you're not suggesting we just cut and run?

TH1: No, no, no. Of course not. We can't just cut and run.

TH2: These aren't the droids you're looking for.

TH1: These aren't the droids we're looking for. We can't just cut and run. Exit strategies are for cowards who hate America.

Behind the distorting caricature of "we can't just cut and run" are several ideas and principles that give the slogan its power.

Some of these ideas are expressed as bits of folk wisdom, like the "Pottery-Barn Rule," which says that if you break it, you bought it (i.e., you must pay whatever it takes to restore it to wholeness). Or like the Boy Scout rule, which says that good scouts must leave a campsite in better condition than it was when they arrived.

Most compelling to me is the argument that Iraq must not be allowed to become a "failed state." Failed states constitute a threat to their neighbors and, ultimately, to America and the rest of the world.

Chaotic failed states can result in intolerable humanitarian situations and ethnic slaughter — as occurred in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during the 1990s. The worst-case scenario I most fear in Iraq is a replay of the genocidal Rwandan civil war. Iraq's Sunnis have, like the Tutsis of Rwanda, enjoyed and abused decades of privilege despite their minority status. Iraq's Shiite majority — and the Kurdish minority, a majority in the north — are as legitimately aggrieved as the Hutus, but they're far better armed. And lurking across the border is not Burundi, but Iran.

In addition to such humanitarian crises, failed states also create lawless havens for terrorist networks like al-Qaida. One of the many bitter ironies of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has been the self-fulfilling prophecy regarding that country as a base for al-Qaida operatives. The network couldn't gain a toehold in that country before the invasion, but now it has become for them a haven, a base of international operations, a source of weapons, explosives and recruits.

"'We' can't just cut and run" is, in part, shorthand for "'we' must not allow Iraq to descend into the chaos of a failed state."

To an extent, I agree, but this assumption involves some question-begging. It presumes that the core question — what is the most likely way, now, to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? — is already answered, and the presumptive answer is "to stay the course and not cut and run." And all of this presumptive question-begging allows us to avoid considering that "the course" upon which we are staying remains ill-defined and may, in fact, lead in due course to the very outcome we are hoping to avoid.

Polk is not optimistic that "staying the course" can produce a good outcome in Iraq. He argues that "the course" leads, rather, to a worst-case scenario:

The first option has been called "staying the course." In practice that means continued fighting. France "stayed the course" in Algeria in the 1950s as America did in Vietnam in the 1960s and as the Israelis are now doing in occupied Palestine. It has never worked anywhere. In Algeria, the French employed over three times as many troops, nearly half a million, to fight roughly the same number of insurgents as America is now fighting in Iraq. They lost. America had half a million soldiers in Vietnam and gave up. After forty years of warfare against the Palestinians, the Israelis have achieved neither peace nor security.

Wars of national "self-determination," to use President Woodrow Wilson's evocative phrase, can last for generations or even centuries. Britain tried to beat down (or even exterminate) the Irish for nearly 900 years, from shortly after the 11th-century Norman invasion until 1921; the French fought the Algerians from 1831 until 1962; both Imperial and Communist Russia have been fighting the Chechens since about 1731. Putin's Russia is still at it. There was no light at the end of those "tunnels."

The first exception that occurred to me to Polk's categorical statement — "it has never worked anywhere" — is the United States' experience in the Philippines during the early 20th century. America "stayed the course" in the Philippines and was able to establish a degree of security and order. The "course" that we took there, however, involved concentration camps, forced relocation, collective punishment and torture.

Polk does not mention the Philippines, but he does account for the consequences of such an approach:

It is not only the actual casualties that count. What wars of "national liberation" have taught us is that they brutalize the participants who survive. Inevitably such wars are vicious. Both sides commit atrocities. In their campaigns to drive away those they regard as their oppressors, terrorists/freedom fighters seek to make their opponents conclude that staying is unacceptably expensive and, since they do not have the means to fight conventional wars, they often pick targets that will produce dramatic and painful results. Irish, Jewish, Vietnamese, Tamil, Chechen, Basque and others blew up hotels, cinemas, bus stations and/or apartment houses. …

Faced with such challenges, the occupying power often reacts with massive attacks aimed at terrorists but inevitably also killing many civilians. To get information from those it manages to capture, it also frequently engages in torture. Torture did not begin at the Abu Ghraib prison; it is endemic in guerrilla warfare. Two phrases from the Franco-Algerian war of the 1950s-1960s tell it all and ring true today: "torture is to guerrilla war what the machine gun was to trench warfare in the First World War" and "torture is the cancer of democracy." Guerrilla warfare and counter insurgency inexorably corrupt the very causes for which soldiers and insurgents fight.

Almost worse, even in exhausted "defeat" for the one and heady "victory" for the other, they leave behind a chaos that spawns warlords, gangsters and thugs as is today so evident in Chechnya and Afghanistan. After half a century, Algeria has still not recovered from the trauma of its war of liberation against France.

The longer the war in Iraq continues the more it will resemble the statement the Roman historian Tacitus attributed to the contemporary guerrilla leader of the Britons. The Romans, he said, "create a desolation and call it peace."

Read Polk's entire argument. It's a persuasive case that staying the course in Iraq will cost thousands more American and Iraqi lives, and billions more dollars, but that the end result will be a desolation that no one will call peace.

Iraq

Previous Post

November 13, 2004

Jeanne on Iris

Next Post

November 15, 2004 Unprepared

Recent Comments

10 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary construction in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Iron hammer Stone hammer Bronze chisel Wooden mallet