An Obligation to the Future

When the College was last in session, news reports provided a near-constant reminder of the war being fought on the other side of the world. Three months later, the coverage of the war may have lessened, but the costs have surely not. Despite the early perception of a swift victory last spring, little has actually improved on the ground in Iraq. For the American soldiers in the thick of it, this summer has been anything but a vacation.

This summer saw two major milestones, though both were largely symbolic. On June 28, the U.S.-led coalition transferred limited sovereignty to a government of Iraqis, ending the reign of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and placing control of the country—at least officially—in the hands of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Unfortunately, the transfer of power has not made the rocky road to peace in Iraq any smoother. Earlier this month, a second, far grimmer milestone: the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq crept past the sobering 1,000 mark.

Sadly, a safe and peaceful Iraq seems an ever more distant dream. The Bush administration has been roundly criticized for its failures to plan adequately for reconstruction, and, in part due to those mistakes, stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq has proven to be a slow and exceedingly difficult process. A budding insurgency has led to a fracturing of the coalition’s control of the region, and American credibility, which was already suffering, has taken further hits. As feared, Iraq has become a rallying point for terrorist recruitment throughout the Middle East. It was recently revealed that a classified C.I.A. report is predicting that Iraq may be on the verge of descending into civil war. Perhaps partially due to those fears, the U.S. announced aggressive new plans to take back rebel-held areas such as Falluja in advance of the country’s election, which is scheduled for January. Those operations will likely be bloody, which may further jeopardize America’s position in the broader war on terror.

It is for all of these very valid reasons that the number of whispers supporting America quickly bowing out has been rising. Conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on Monday that inside officials suggest a second Bush White House may begin with a complete and sudden withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, John Kerry vowed recently that if elected, he would set his sights on an Iraq exit within his first year in office. There has been a marked shift in the dialogue about the war; whereas neocons once dangled the possibility of democracy transforming the region, today even the most optimistic officials admit that a messy, fragmented and unstable Iraq is probably the best America can hope for.

While we recognize these dire circumstances, we reject calls for prematurely leaving Iraq. Although we were not in favor of the war at its outset, much of our opposition was rooted in the fear that invading and destabilizing Iraq would ultimately make America less secure. We had severe misgivings about this administration—so influenced by extreme ideologues—and we doubted its resolve to invest properly in the foundations of a new nation.

Seeing through this project of peace has never been more morally imperative. Departing Iraq immediately—all the while knowing that chaos will ensue—would be ethically irresponsible. While we may not have favored invasion in the first place, America made a promise to the people of Iraq—and America must make a good faith effort to fulfill that promise. After all, this war has taken a profoundly larger toll on innocent Iraqi civilians—unofficial estimates range from at least 10,000 to 37,000—and all of them, in addition to the thousand Americans, deserve to have died in a worthwhile struggle. While removing Saddam Hussein was an undeniable victory, a violent civil war hardly leaves Iraq better off.

In the long run, bowing out prematurely would only compound America’s troubles in the war on terror. Strategically, it would cause irreparable harm to U.S. credibility. In addition, the environment likely to result from a failed Iraqi state is precisely the kind in which terrorist groups would thrive. What is needed, though, is not a continuation of the failed strategy of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. Instead, we must continue to look for new methods to minimize casualties and damage. Rule of law must be emphasized above all to distinguish the new government from regimes of the past. Furthermore, plans to train Iraqi soldiers must be ramped up and expedited; currently, despite promises, progress in this area has been tremendously slow. The sooner this war becomes a war within Islam—between the reformists and the fundamentalists—rather than a war between Islam and the West, the sooner dreams of democracy in the Middle East may be realized.

With U.S. elections just around the corner, President Bush and Sen. Kerry must continue to elaborate on their plans for success in Iraq. They have only recently begun to talk substantively about the differences between their approaches, and there is still considerable room for more depth. For too long, both have relied repeatedly on empty assurances that they will “do a better job” than their opponent. Such platitudes do not serve the electorate. The cost of being in Iraq is significant—both in lives and money—and those costs will remain a burden for the foreseeable future. Voters deserve to know what their candidates plan to do about it, and the Iraqi people deserve assurances that America honestly intends to fulfill its promise.