Staying in Iraq, even if we shouldn't have entered

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been facing unprecedented challenges in Iraq, greater than those of the war itself. American soldiers have been victims of attacks launched by Baathist loyalists, anarchy reigns in parts of the country, and basic services have yet to be restored.

America's continued military presence in Iraq has drawn criticism from many sides, including isolationist conservatives, families of American troops and the antiwar left. Iraqis themselves have protested against it. Cries emanate from all sides to "bring the troops home," "end the occupation" of Iraq and ignore reconstruction. For example, the website of ANSWER International, a prominent leftist organization that organized many of the antiwar marches calls on people in the United States to "join together for a massive demonstration in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 25th to demand 'Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation of Iraq.'" Likewise, Bring Them Home Now!, a "campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war" demands "an end to the occupation of Iraq" and "an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations."

Such calls, however, are misguided. A sustained American military presence and a commitment to Iraq are needed. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" will not bring freedom to the Iraqi people or protect American interests unless the U.S. engages in a massive nation building effort to reconstruct Iraqi society and build a stable democratic government. Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed by sanctions and by Saddam, and no civil society exists. The Iraqi people are in a severe state of deprivation. Moreover, Iraq itself is an artificial construction of colonial powers consisting of groups with a history of distrust with one another. A large power vacuum has come into existence after Saddam's overthrow. The opposition to a sustained American presence in Iraq by opponents of the war is unfounded. While there were many legitimate reasons to oppose the war, now that it has happened it is much more logical to rebuild Iraq than to let chaos and anarchy persist. Howard Dean, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination at the moment and the major candidate who most strongly opposed the war, argues for a strong American presence in Iraq noting "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security."

Those who oppose American involvement in Iraq have made much of some Iraqis' opposition to an American presence. It is understandable that while the Iraqi people greeted American troops as liberators for toppling Saddam, they are hostile to a foreign presence in their country. There is a natural yearning for self-government on their part. While it is easy to sympathize with them, American help is integral to building democracy, introducing rule of law, and ensuring order. Pulling troops out immediately would undermine attempts to create a democratic Iraq respecting human rights. As Dean eloquently puts it, "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out."

President Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction is a step in the right direction, though in the long run rebuilding Iraq will probably cost much more. It is certainly true that $87 billion is a large amount of money and may burden the American taxpayer. But Iraqi reconstruction is a fundamental issue of American national security, and neglecting Iraq may have even greater costs in the future. Not being actively engaged in Iraq and withdrawing quickly from Iraq could cause the government to fall to Islamists, lead to the disintegration of the country or civil war, or produce another outcome worse than Saddam's dictatorship.

A sustained American effort in rebuilding Iraq has the potential of marking a new beginning for the Iraqi people in a similar manner that the Marshall Plan marked a new beginning for Europeans. While the Marshall Plan required immense amounts of money, it was essential to rebuilding a war-torn Europe, strengthening democracy, and weakening the appeal of communism and other radical ideologies. A concerted effort on the part of the United States is necessary to do the same in Iraq. Arvin Bahl is a Wilson School major from Edison, N.J.