While traveling in Turkey this morning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that Iraq troop withdrawal could be accelerated. Some 5,000 American troops could come home because violence levels in the country were generally down and Iraqi security forces were doing well on their own. Two brigades, or about 10,000 troops, are to be withdrawn from Iraq by this year and Gates said it was possible one more brigade, or 5,000 troops, could come home, too. What's amazing is how little this orderly withdrawal seems to be benefiting the Obama administration. Of course, with an economy still in turmoil and a renewed commitment to Afghanistan and a push for universal health care, the fate of 5,000 troops coming home early is bound to get lost in the shuffle. Still, this is a case where the administration is doing what it said it would do and it's all going pretty well--not withstanding the spasms of violence that continue to plague Iraq.
It's as if Iraq is fading quickly from national memory. Yes, "The Hurt
Locker," the documentary about Iraq bomb detonators, gets rave reviews
and the plight of Iraq War veterans remains an important issue. But as
an issue of national attention Iraq has fallen off the radar in a way
one couldn't have imagined in 2006, when it dominated the mid-term
election and helped set the stage for the Obama victory in the
following election cycle. Now Iraq feels increasingly irrelevant in
electoral life. Obama wasn't asked about it at his last two press
conferences.
Wars have tended to upend American life in ways
large and small. World War I popularized the cigarette and the
wristwatch--and sped the migration of African Americans north and
expanded America's role in the world. Vietnam cracked the social order.
But it's hard to see what social impact the Iraq war will have had on
America now that it's not even much of a topic of conversation.
Let
me say, I realize that for the families of those in Iraq and those
involved in prosecuting the war, Iraq remains the central focus of
their lives. I just mean as a country, Iraq has largely faded from view
as Secretary Gates's comments remind us this morning.
Kathryn Bigelow will no doubt be honored that you refer to her excellent film "The Hurt Locker" as a "documentary." It's that good. But although it's based on declassified information, it's a fictionalized feature with actors, set in Iraq and shot in Jordan.
The lack of social consequences from the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war has troubled me, too, given what watersheds previous wars have been.
(There's a book, a comparative history published in the '60s or '70s I think, of the social effects of war on several societies--but I can't recall the title or author. I have a vague sense of its location in the library. Helpful, huh?)
"Troubled" in the sense that I fear they're there, but I'm not seeing them for lack of adequate attention.
Perhaps it's because of the sub rosa character of these wars--no draft, no real sense of national urgency, Americans urged to keep shopping, no matter what? In that sense the parallel historically will be not to WWI or Vietnam, but to certain "small" or "colonial" wars?
Or perhaps some historical distance will help sharpen perspective? Might it be that the election of our first African-American president will be seen as, in part, a consequence of the Iraq War?
Small correction: The Hurt Locker is not a documentary.
It's not new irrelevance. Bush and America realized long ago that there was no bottomless pot of cheap oil to fill-er-up our SUVs in Iraq but they wouldn't accept defeat. Having gone in intelligence blind, language deaf and culture dumb our soldiers were shooting in darkness at the slightest sound. We compensated for fear and frustration with firepower and brutality. In all their armor and with all their guns our forces could not stand up to dedicated insurgents armed only with rifles, grenades and IEDs. Now the Chief of Ops in Baghdad calls for declaring "victory" and going home. Bush would not do that because he wanted to pass the war to his successor so the latter would be blamed for his incompetence. But the real fault lies, not with the Pentagon's prostitutes for stars generals who sought promotion by acting as parrots on Rumsfeld's shoulder, but with the American people suffering from the "ain't my kid goin' to Iraq" disconnect syndrome. It cheepens the sacrifice of volunteer patriots who went in defense of their country to say: no one made them do it...they knew what they were getting into when they signed up... and, this was their career choice. The cheap handshake and the words "thanks for your service" are little compensation for all the widows and orphans that the American people allowed to be created. But the fact is that we killed and destroyed senselessly and we will NEVER be appreciated for that. Iraq is Iraq and for Iraqis; there's nothing to gain from pretending that we have anything to gain or any higher motive for being there. The patient somehow survived our botched surgery. It's time to discharge Iraq rather than keep trying to regain our image as the "Great Doctor of Democracy," meddling in their affairs.
I agree. I just hope that, despite our "best efforts", something positive will result (is resulting?). That is, that Iraq will settle into something nation-like, and that the internal killing will end. I am not optimistic about this. I also want to mention that many of our military people have a highly patriotic outlook, and tend to believe that either they are fighting for the USA's valid interests, or that their "job" is to fight where and when told. Many others, of course, see the stupidity and incompetence of the whole thing, going back to the invasion. I am a Vietnam era vet, and this is my opinion of the "soldiers'" views, based upon my limited experience.