As he took command over U.S. troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said yesterday that the “way ahead will be hard, but it is not hopeless.” What does he mean by “not hopeless”? If he’s saying a U.S. conceptualization of victory is achievable—solidifying through our military presence a working coalition of Shiites and Sunnis that can autonomously control extremist, sectarian violence—I don’t think that’s a practical hope. We can’t write the whole country off as hopeless, but I think we need to redefine both our hopes and our “way ahead.”
If we hope to offer security through our military presence, can we at least couple it with aid when security fails? Every day, I can see horrifying photos of not only dead Iraqi’s, but dying Iraqis. Can we not prevent some of those deaths? With the billions of dollars we give to support our military and the Iraqi military, I wonder how much we’re providing to give medical care, food assistance, basic needs to the victims of this war? I assume we’re doing something for the people who lose their homes and livelihoods over our battles, but somehow I doubt it’s enough. Here, we could think about the message we’re sending to Iraqi people: they see no end to the violence, and also no help in the midst of violence. I expect some of these people who have no hope might become part of the extremist rebellion. If the loss of life isn’t enough to cause our government to do more, maybe the threat to our “hope” in Iraq will cause our government to think more critically.
Thomas Friedman's February 7 column in the New York Times takes an interesting and honest approach to the international affairs angle of our "end game" in Iraq with his deadline and gas price cap proposal. I commend him, but I also wonder what can we do to at least help cap the human toll--treatment when prevention falls? We know exactly how many US soldiers have given their lives, and we must not forget them. But estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths vary from 30,000 (Pentagon number) to 600,000 (Lancet). How much is each life worth to us? Worth enough to try to keep the dying from death?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, we don't actually think of Iraqis as people. We have all of these vague images in our minds of turban-wearing religious extremists, not to mention the lingering suspicion that somehow they are connected with September 11th. We don't think of them as fellow human beings who are worth enough medical care and food as us. They are the other, not a part of us. Until that changes, we aren't going to be of any real help to them.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you both had similar thoughts on this. I wholly agree that we've objectified the people we're fighting. However, I also think we're capable of treating the Iraqi civilians as humans (i.e. helping them survive). The simple fact that our press reports that 1000 people died in a recent week means we do care. We just have to bring caring to the policy forefront.
ReplyDelete