Rhetoric on Iraq is based more on political hopes than martial reality. From the very first troop deployments to the most recent deaths, key decision makers have been influenced to take actions that are not in the nation's interest. This is because Republicans and Democrats care more about winning elections than winning wars.
Military decisions have been too closely intertwined with domestic political concerns from the beginning. The decision to send American troops abroad was part of the Republican effort to win the 2002 midterm elections. President Bush and his allies in Congress scheduled the vote on war as close as possible to the election so that it would have the greatest political effect. The decision to send American troops abroad was intentionally based on gaining an advantage at home.
Now this foreign entanglement is complicating 2006 election plans, and many Republicans are seeking a partial troop withdrawal because of domestic dissatisfaction with the war. Just as the troops were sent abroad because of politics, they may soon be brought back for the same reason. Republican lawmakers used and continue to use the troops as political tools.
Democrats are not much better. In 2002, many acquiesced to war despite doubts because they feared appearing weak on defense. Now, to appease wealthy, vocal, pacifistic party power brokers, congressional Democrats are calling for troop withdrawal.
If Democrats truly believe that withdrawal is in America's best interests, they have a duty to say so. They must recognize, however, that running against a war makes defeat in that war politically advantageous; if Democrats run on opposition to the Iraq war, they benefit from failure therein. This means that American interest in victory abroad could run counter to Democratic dreams of victory at home.
To avoid politically suicidal Schadenfreude, congressional Democrats must make clear what their opposition is based on. Democrats who demand troop withdrawals should avoid any mention of discontent with the way the war has gone. Their opposition is based either on sincere consideration or political opportunism, and only one of those is a winning political strategy.
I do not agree with these calls for withdrawal. I have been particularly struck by comparisons between the current Iraqi government and the regime of Saddam Hussein. The argument is essentially that we have replaced one monster with another, and that this makes staying in Iraq worthless. But while it is true that some prisoners have been abused, the abuse falls far short of the systemic torture and murder employed by Hussein.
People seem to have forgotten just how tyrannical Hussein was. The Anfal campaign, in which Hussein intentionally executed 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds, has receded from memory. So have the 100,000 to 250,000 people killed during crackdowns in April 1991 after defeat in the first Gulf War. And critics certainly do not remember Abu Ghraib when it was the scene of mass executions and not psychological pain, when it was not nasty but hell on earth. Torture and murder are wrong, and any government committing either is guilty of crimes against humanity. The Iraqi government must investigate any accusations of torture and take a clear stand against inhumane treatment. But 100 men beaten in a basement is not even close to the moral equivalent of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered because of their religion or ethnicity.
Joseph Stalin once said, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Perhaps this is why people compare Hussein's regime with Iraq's current government; it is much easier for us to relate to one symbolic man than faceless legions. For our sake and Iraq's, though, we must step back and view things in their proper context.
Those who claim to speak in Iraq's best interest would do well to recall what the alternative to the American presence is. We should consider the consequences of withdrawal or inaction before insisting on either, and our decisions should be based on reality, not reelection. Barry Caro is a freshman from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.