'We Meant Well' doesn't cut it anymore

[a continuation of my essay: The self-delusional nature of Exceptionalism]

Two weeks ago, I was set to write an essay that said, despite my opposition to the war and to Bush, we needed to stick it out. We appointed ourselves Saviors and got ourselves into this mess and we had to stay until the country got on the stable path. You might not believe I was going to write that but I was.

Then I read a USA Today piece that reported: Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

I admit my general skepticism of polls, but it's a pretty big body blow to the contention that, "If we don't stay the course, we'll betray the Iraqi people."

Then there were the prisoner abuse images that did incalculable damage. We go into this country uninvited and then some complain that they're hypersenstitive about us torturing them. We can't do that anymore. Sen. James Inhofe wonders why anyone cares what happens to Iraqi prisoners. I'm no PR expert but I doubt the "we're not as bad as Saddam" motto isn't going to rally Iraqis to our side in droves.

And yes, whiny Arab states do far worse things to their citizens. But the drip, drip, drip of these problems is seriously undermining the effort to rebuild Iraq. The accusations that abuses are far more systematic and widespread than Americans want to admit.

The Washington Post cited Red Cross sources stated that some military intelligence officers estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of "the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Of the 43,000 Iraqis who have been imprisoned at some point during the occupation, only about 600 have been referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution, according to U.S. officials.

I know there's a lot of confusion in the fog of war. But over year after "mission accomplished," only less than 1.4% of those detained have started to go through the justice process.

The Post cited former prisoners, Iraqi lawyers, human rights advocates and the the Red Cross and wrote: Problems in the U.S.-run detention system in Iraq extended beyond physical mistreatment in prison cellblocks, involving thousands of arrests without evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of suspects starting from the moment of detention... U.S.-led forces routinely rounded up Iraqis and then denied or restricted their rights under the Geneva Conventions during months of confinement, including rights to legal representation and family visits, the sources said.

This doesn't paint a picture of a 'few bad apples' acting roguely on their own.

(The Red Cross is hardly a partisan organization; if fact, they've come under criticism in recent years for being TOO neutral)

Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. He shouldn't be held responsible for what others did; he should be held responsible for what he did.

He is responsible because these abuses were first reported to superiors on 13 January and but no charges were brought against the soldiers until this month, only after the bad publicity. He should should resign because a spokesman for the Red Cross told the BBC that he had been warning the US about such cases for more than a year and nothing happened until the media publicized it. He should resign because his policies helped create the culture of impunity that these individual soldiers abused.

The tortures were allowed to happen because of a "Failure of leadership, lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision." This is not a criticism leveled by a John Kerry supporter or a Bush-hater or a 'warmed-over 60s hippie' peacenik. This is a criticism made by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, author of the Pentagon report that found numerous "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" at the U.S.-run prison complex near Baghdad.

One paper editorialized: But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership. The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes... How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen... On the battlefield, [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard] Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence... This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

These are two of the less damning parts of the editorial. No 'shoot the messenger' whining. No attacking the hippies. No blame the media smokescreens.

The paper in question: The Army Times.

In his lecture to Iraqis on Arab television, President Bush said, "We stand side by side with the Iraqis that love freedom. But people will be held to account. That's what the process does. That's what we do in America. We fully investigate, we let everybody see the results of the investigation and then people will be held to account. " The president should demonstrate his commitment to accountability if Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to.

But while Rumsfeld's departure would be helpful (I'm not holding my breath), it would not address the fundamental difficulties we face in Iraq.

Let's put feelings about the administration aside for a moment. I do believe that most Americans (the 70% who supported the invasion and even us "warmed over 60s hippies" who didn't) would prefer a stable and democratic Iraq to one in chaos.

Our intentions are good. But we must also address the consequences of our actions.

Even if you think the war was a good idea, even if you think Iraq is in better shape today than under Saddam, I think we all have to ask ourselves if we've reached the point of diminishing returns. If we've reached the point where we may do more harm, even if inadvertantly, by staying than by leaving.

I'm not convinced yet that this is the case, but we seem to be going toward that point rather than away from it. Regardless, the question shouldn't be taboo.

Unfortunately, the question IS taboo for most. It's taboo because some people think that by saying "yes," we'd either a) be admitting that the invasion was a bad idea (which a 'yes' answer does not necessarily imply) or b) be giving the proverbial 'aid and comfort' to terrorists. Though the abuse images was a pretty big PR coup for the al-Qaedaists too.

The question can't be posed by the simple dichotomy: status quo or immediate and full pull out. If we're going to stay, things need to improve. Sooner, not later. How are we going to make that happen? Can we make that happen? Too much energy has been spent retrospectively defending or attacking the decision to go to war that everyone seems to be neglecting this question.

Yes, I think the invasion was a bad idea; a bad idea poorly executed. Yes, I think events on the ground demonstrate that the anti-war advocates weren't totally full of it because nothing that's happening there was unforeseable. Yes, I hope it serves as a warning for the next time we think of doing something like this. But you know what, it's a great intellectual exercise but it doesn't do a damn thing to address the current problems. Having been right doesn't really make me feel any better when I see American soldiers torturing Iraqis; or when I think that a guy watched his brother being decapitated on television.

Most here would prefer a free and democratic Iraq. I really do believe that. As a result, Americans need to start asking if the actions in Iraq are achieving the goal they all proclaim to want. The fact is, I don't have any good solutions. I hope someone else does.

To do this, we need to stop pretending that the declaration of good intentions is a vaccine that immunizes us from having to consider the consequences of our actions. If the ACTUAL consequences are diametrically opposed to the INTENDED consequences, then those good intentions don't amount to a hill of beans.

However true it may be, simply saying "we meant well" doesn't cut it any more.