This is a long "essay" that came out of an innocent post regarding support for the anti-war protests this past weekend. I apologize for the length of the post - it was impossible for me to truly respond in a less lengthy manner. It is long, but I would love it if you read the whole thing.

My support of anti-war protests does not mean that I believe that we must pull troops out tomorrow. This line of thought is clearly irrational, and it is often expressed by those that are somewhat ignorant of what is means to be in a military conflict (and this does not mean that I know much more). Yet at the same time that does not mean that we cannot push for withdrawal as soon as possible. But what I truly love about the anti-war protests is that there is a growing sentiment in this nation that our actions in Iraq were not the proper mode of action. Over half of this nation believes that we should not have attacked Iraq. And this is what I appreciate about the anti-war protests – they are being a voice that is in-line with the American people, and hopefully this will cause others to take notice. No longer are people viewing protest and dissent as unpatriotic, but instead are seeing that our actions in Iraq are what are un-American. And that dissent is in reality the essence of what the United States has always been about. Supporting this past weekend’s protests is similar to linking to Michael Moore. I may not agree with everything that Michael Moore does or says, but in the long run we have very similar goals.

Honzo asked a question in the comments of a post from yesterday, asking the following:

More importantly, what happens if we cut and run right now? Would that not leave things worse than if we stay and finish restoring power to the Iraqi People? Would that not be a bad thing? One would think that the best way out would be to stay and create a healthy, stable democracy.

He then continued this train of thought over at Hundie Jo:

I think that if the Anti-War crowd really sticks to the reasons it is anti-war, they would support a finishing of the conflict, not abandonment. Would that not lead to fewer lives lost, especially for the hopeful Iraqis? Would not they suffer the most from a complete withdraw? Should we not have their lives held into account? Where is the compassion for them? Are they not worth fighting for? Imagine if we finished and left Iraq with a stong [sic], stable democracy and defeated the Islamic Terrorists there? Would that not be the best outcome? Should we not "root" for the best outcome? This is not [sic] longer of [sic] question of no war. The war is. There is no escaping it.

These are very important questions, and they are questions that I do not necessary have the answers for. But I can make an attempt. There are a lot of other people out there making arguments on both sides, and they are all much smarter than I am, but I will give it a run.

[More:]

If it is not clear to you, I believe that when the United States attacked Iraq we did the wrong thing. But that does not mean that withdrawing would be the right thing to do at this point. I think it is fairly clear to everyone that this war has been a disaster. The leadership in this war was clearly under prepared for this conflict, as was the overall situation of the military (i.e. lack of equipment). For some odd reason few of those making these decisions expected the insurgency that has been present ever since we attacked. This is an oddity because those outside of the administration predicted it, and even some within (anyone remember the General who said we would need many more troops than what the administration was planning for? He got fired for being correct!). And our efforts have turned into somewhat of a mess - we have lost almost 2,000 troops. Tens of thousands have been injured. And upwards of 100,000 Iraqis have died. On top of that, we have already spent 200 billion dollars, and expect to spend upwards of 70-80 billion dollars a year while we continue to occupy Iraq. So what does this mean? I do think that it is important to think of all the people involved, and not just the U.S. troops. At this point it is not about the money that we are spending (though it is getting ridiculous). It is about preserving life and doing what is right.

But how does one preserve life and do what is right in the current situation we have in Iraq?

Initially, as a proponent of non-violence, it is easy for me to say that I think that all violence should be avoided, and in turn we should withdraw as soon as possible from Iraq in order to stop pro-longing the violence. I think that everything possible must be done in order to limit the violence and death that we (and the insurgency) are causing. But is this the best way to minimize the violence and death? The question then becomes what is the best way to minimize the violence that is and will continue to occur.

One of the statements that Honzo made in the above quote is as follows:

One would think that the best way out would be to stay and create a healthy, stable democracy.

This sounds great in theory, but I am not convinced that this is possible. For one, I am not sure that it is possible to create a healthy, stable democracy while at the same time fighting against a violent insurgency. To look at this, first we need to examine the insurgency. Most people involved would say that we have gained little ground against the insurgency. For an example of this, see a recent article in Time Magazine, where it is clear that we are not winning anything against the insurgents, but are at best at a stand still. We are just trading blows, an in turn are utterly failing in our effort to defeat the insurgency.

From there you need to examine the cause of the violence in Iraq. Is this violence coming from the U.S. occupation of their country? Or is this violence coming in the context of the Sunnis losing power and attempting to grab it back through violence? And what would really occur if the United States were to withdraw? A fairly strong argument could be made that much of the violence has come as a result of the U.S. occupation, and with a withdrawal the violence would decrease. While much of the violence has been carried out against other Iraqis, this does not mean that the intention is to harm Iraqis. I would contend that the goals of this violence are not as much to harm Iraqis as to harm the efforts of the United States in creating this "democracy". It is unclear if this is true, and I am not sure that this could be proven either way unless the United States withdrew.

But how does this disrupt an effort to create a "healthy, stable democracy"? It is extremely difficult to create anything stable when there is an environment of intense violence all around you. Intense violence is not conducive to stability. But it does not stop there. This violence, by nature, also breeds hatred and more violence. And the more violence, and in turn hatred, increases, the more difficult it is to sit down and have a stable form of democracy.

From there, I am not convinced that this concept of a stable and healthy democracy is even possible at this point. A healthy and stable democracy is not possible by force. You cannot just go bomb the hell out of a country and expect to create a democratic state out of nothing. And we are now seeing this. The deadline for constitution has come and gone, and what do we have? There are many signs that are pointing to a Civil War if the current Constitution is approved. We have a nation that lacks any form of solid infrastructure that is on the brink of civil war.

There one more issue that has not been discussed, and that is whether a nation-state can truly become a "healthy, stable democracy" while they are occupied by another nation-state. It is truly possible to have this healthy democracy while they cannot even maintain a secure environment without another nation providing the security? I do not believe that it is possible to become a healthy and stable democracy while being occupied by another nation - this provides an outside influence on the democratic practice so that it no longer becomes a healthy democracy. It becomes a false front where you may vote for certain people, but someone else (in this case the United States) has the power.

Of course, there is another side of the argument. There is an argument that says that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is a stabilizing force, and that any form of withdrawal will throw the nation into anarchy. But I see little evidence to support this assertion, considering the fact that Iraq is not exactly a bastion of stability right now and there is little reason to believe that things will get worse upon the withdrawal of the coalition forces.

But there is one more problem - we have destroyed the police force/army that existed pre-invasion. And we have been relatively unsuccessful in creating an autonomous Iraqi security force. We have continually been overly optimistic in assessing the post-invasion needs of Iraq, and many would say that the worst decision that was made post-invasion was breaking up the standing army and sending them home. Many of these former soldiers and police officers knew nothing but security and weapons, and they were all fired. It would be somewhat natural to join the insurgency, which is what many of these former police and military have done. But that is a tangent to the main problem impacting a timely withdrawal. The main problem is the lack of Iraqi police force after we sent the former force home.

And this is the one reason why it would be unwise to withdraw immediately. But this should also be our number one focus - to continue to create and develop a security force that can keep maintain a peaceful and stable environment without the help of U.S. soldiers - so that we can get out of Iraq as soon as possible. We can no longer afford - both in terms of finances and public opinion (both nationally and internationally) - to maintain an occupying force in Iraq. We must train and equip a security force so that Iraqis can rule and patrol their fellow Iraqis. But this must be the primary goal, and it must be expedited so that we can stop the occupation.

So with that said, we need to push for the earliest possible time for withdrawal. And to clarify for the two people that made it this far - that does not mean this week, but it means as soon as possible. Our primary goal should be to end our occupancy sooner than later.

---