thedrifter
08-02-07, 07:55 AM
COMMUNITY VOICES
Stability for Iraq lies in a political approach, not a troop withdrawal
History points to the danger of pulling out U.S. forces before getting Iran and Syria involved.
Wassim Mazraany
August 2, 2007
Several months ago, the White House surprised many by
ordering a surge in the troop level in Iraq. Democrats cried foul
and started pushing for a withdrawal, citing public opinion and
the Iraq Study Group report.
Republican support for the war, our two Maine senators
included, seems to be eroding. It is unfortunate our senators
seem to be looking at this issue through the prism of the last
election with one eye and the next election with the other.
Actually, full troop withdrawal was not a cornerstone of the Iraq
Study Group report.
Instead, the report's major departure from the current
administration position is that it implores the United States to
try to find a political solution to the problem. In other words,
talk to Syria and Iran.
Let's go back four years. At the time, the majority of the
American people didn't seem to mind the invasion -- because of
oil, weapons of mass destruction, personal vendetta, distraction
from failure to capture Bin Laden, whatever. In 2004, even
though it was clear we were more likely to find penguins than
weapons of mass destruction in the Arab desert, Bush still got
re-elected with a bigger margin than in 2000. The public still
was buying it.
But this is America. The only thing we hate more than personal
injury lawyers is losing. And we're losing badly.
What is more important than every leg and every life lost, and
the billions of dollars in between, is our national pride. The vote
last November was as much "pull out of Iraq" as it was "please
do something different to win." The fact is, we can't afford to
lose, and leaving is losing. Here's why.
We clearly have a huge interest in a stable Middle East -- we
need to keep the oil flowing to our economy, not oil money
going to Haliburton. We need democracy in the Middle East, but
it does not have to be delivered by an F-16.
We need a friendly Arab world, not to send cluster bombs to the
Israeli army to blow up children and civilians in South Lebanon.
We need a stable Iraq, not to provoke Syria and Iran to
destabilize the country.
Unfortunately, that could not be achieved with a troop pullout.
History is the best witness.
In 1982, Reagan ordered the Marines to Beirut after the Israeli
invasion and the siege of the city. The Marines were in a hurry to
leave, and the Israelis killed thousands of Palestinians in South
Beirut. The Marines came back later that year. After the bombing
of their headquarters in 1984, they left again. Immediately
thereafter, chaos erupted and the Syrians came in. Can we afford
that in Iraq?
We went to Somalia in 1993 and left after the first challenge to
our presence. Chaos has been there since. Can we afford
leaving that in Iraq?
Watching the Democrats plead with President Bush to "listen to
the American people and withdraw" has the credibility of Dr.
Kevorkian lecturing on the value of human life. Democrats voted
for the war in the first place, and now can't take it back.
It is easy to say we should withdraw. If Bush does, they win. If he
doesn't and things continue to worsen, they can say we told you
so. Neither position passes the smell test.
If we withdraw, civil war will intensify, inviting Iran, Syria, Turkey
and Saudi Arabia into the mix. Throw in the Sunni-Shiite conflict
brewing in the Arab world, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, the
Hezbollah-Hamas-Israel factor, and it is a huge domino effect.
Democracy, prosperity and freedom will not be on the march.
To support our military presence, a political approach is needed.
The cooperation of Syria and Iran is not going to be free, and we
can't bomb them into submission. We have to offer the carrot.
That is, stability of their regimes and acknowledging them as
regional powers.
It is not like it is against our political values to do so. We just
paid the North Koreans $35 million for their nuclear reactor.
Two years ago, we paid for Libyan cooperation. Reagan once did
business with Iran's ayatollahs. I am sure Oliver North still has
some Iranian phone numbers we could use.
A fair solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is long overdue.
Return of land (including East Jerusalem) for peace with Israel
will not harm anybody, and would serve Israel much more than
all the smart bombs our taxpayers provide.
Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe need not be worried
about the Democrats' attacks. It behooves them, though, to talk
some sense to the administration to pursue a political discourse
with Iran, Syria and elected Palestinian and Lebanese Parliament
members from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Only then, a stable and safe Iraq could become an achievable
goal. Anything less, and Snowe and Collins have to answer to
frustrated Mainers, not insincere Democrats.
Wassim Mazraany is a surgeon at Eastern Maine Medical Center
and Sebasticook Valley Hospital. He is a native of Lebanon and
lives in Hampden.
Ellie
Stability for Iraq lies in a political approach, not a troop withdrawal
History points to the danger of pulling out U.S. forces before getting Iran and Syria involved.
Wassim Mazraany
August 2, 2007
Several months ago, the White House surprised many by
ordering a surge in the troop level in Iraq. Democrats cried foul
and started pushing for a withdrawal, citing public opinion and
the Iraq Study Group report.
Republican support for the war, our two Maine senators
included, seems to be eroding. It is unfortunate our senators
seem to be looking at this issue through the prism of the last
election with one eye and the next election with the other.
Actually, full troop withdrawal was not a cornerstone of the Iraq
Study Group report.
Instead, the report's major departure from the current
administration position is that it implores the United States to
try to find a political solution to the problem. In other words,
talk to Syria and Iran.
Let's go back four years. At the time, the majority of the
American people didn't seem to mind the invasion -- because of
oil, weapons of mass destruction, personal vendetta, distraction
from failure to capture Bin Laden, whatever. In 2004, even
though it was clear we were more likely to find penguins than
weapons of mass destruction in the Arab desert, Bush still got
re-elected with a bigger margin than in 2000. The public still
was buying it.
But this is America. The only thing we hate more than personal
injury lawyers is losing. And we're losing badly.
What is more important than every leg and every life lost, and
the billions of dollars in between, is our national pride. The vote
last November was as much "pull out of Iraq" as it was "please
do something different to win." The fact is, we can't afford to
lose, and leaving is losing. Here's why.
We clearly have a huge interest in a stable Middle East -- we
need to keep the oil flowing to our economy, not oil money
going to Haliburton. We need democracy in the Middle East, but
it does not have to be delivered by an F-16.
We need a friendly Arab world, not to send cluster bombs to the
Israeli army to blow up children and civilians in South Lebanon.
We need a stable Iraq, not to provoke Syria and Iran to
destabilize the country.
Unfortunately, that could not be achieved with a troop pullout.
History is the best witness.
In 1982, Reagan ordered the Marines to Beirut after the Israeli
invasion and the siege of the city. The Marines were in a hurry to
leave, and the Israelis killed thousands of Palestinians in South
Beirut. The Marines came back later that year. After the bombing
of their headquarters in 1984, they left again. Immediately
thereafter, chaos erupted and the Syrians came in. Can we afford
that in Iraq?
We went to Somalia in 1993 and left after the first challenge to
our presence. Chaos has been there since. Can we afford
leaving that in Iraq?
Watching the Democrats plead with President Bush to "listen to
the American people and withdraw" has the credibility of Dr.
Kevorkian lecturing on the value of human life. Democrats voted
for the war in the first place, and now can't take it back.
It is easy to say we should withdraw. If Bush does, they win. If he
doesn't and things continue to worsen, they can say we told you
so. Neither position passes the smell test.
If we withdraw, civil war will intensify, inviting Iran, Syria, Turkey
and Saudi Arabia into the mix. Throw in the Sunni-Shiite conflict
brewing in the Arab world, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, the
Hezbollah-Hamas-Israel factor, and it is a huge domino effect.
Democracy, prosperity and freedom will not be on the march.
To support our military presence, a political approach is needed.
The cooperation of Syria and Iran is not going to be free, and we
can't bomb them into submission. We have to offer the carrot.
That is, stability of their regimes and acknowledging them as
regional powers.
It is not like it is against our political values to do so. We just
paid the North Koreans $35 million for their nuclear reactor.
Two years ago, we paid for Libyan cooperation. Reagan once did
business with Iran's ayatollahs. I am sure Oliver North still has
some Iranian phone numbers we could use.
A fair solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is long overdue.
Return of land (including East Jerusalem) for peace with Israel
will not harm anybody, and would serve Israel much more than
all the smart bombs our taxpayers provide.
Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe need not be worried
about the Democrats' attacks. It behooves them, though, to talk
some sense to the administration to pursue a political discourse
with Iran, Syria and elected Palestinian and Lebanese Parliament
members from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Only then, a stable and safe Iraq could become an achievable
goal. Anything less, and Snowe and Collins have to answer to
frustrated Mainers, not insincere Democrats.
Wassim Mazraany is a surgeon at Eastern Maine Medical Center
and Sebasticook Valley Hospital. He is a native of Lebanon and
lives in Hampden.
Ellie