Iraq withdrawal not an option

By Roey Rahmil

There seems to be a growing national consensus that the war in Iraq is, if not wrong in principle, poorly planned and severely mismanaged.

America's errors have created a situation in which there is no easy right answer. One option, withdrawing U.S. troops, would almost certainly leave Iraq to suffer an all-out civil war. Such a conflict would likely engender ethnic violence and other atrocities. The other extreme option is to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. This would subject American soldiers and families to more time apart and cause tragic losses for a possibly futile cause.

In an address to the nation early last week, President Bush announced a plan for the second path. His proposed troop surge sparked intense opposition in Congress and was met, at best, with lukewarm support from Iraqis. But at the same time, Iraqi leaders denounced the Iraq Study Group's call for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- a plan the Bush administration soundly rejected. The administration is clearly in a catch-22, but the dilemma is of its own making.

Amidst the debate, the administration and the American people seem to miss a crucial point: By invading Iraq and toppling the state apparatus, the United States took on an obligation to the Iraqi people. The violence that rages now is not our fault, but it is our responsibility. And while it is vitally important to consider the interests of the United States and our troops' well-being, it would be irresponsible and wrong to devalue the well-being of Iraqi civilians.

But politicians do this all the time when they argue that this is the "Iraqis' war." While Iraqis are indeed fighting, they would not be doing so without the United States' invasion and further actions (or inactions). So if the United States is not a cause of the ongoing violence, it has at least made it possible, if not likely. Disregarding this fact is disingenuous.

For the purposes of our national discussion, we must remember that an Iraqi life is worth the same as an American life; there is no principled difference between us. The United States government has taken on a similar obligation to both American citizens and Iraqis.

By ignoring this principle, both sides in the debate make mistakes. Advocates for withdrawal operate under the fiction that, without U.S. forces, Iraqi police and military resources can win the peace. But this defies common sense as well as experience. It is unreasonable to believe that Iraqi forces -- which have been unable to stop the violence in concert with U.S. forces -- would be able to handle the situation on their own. And such consequences would surely signal a victory for Al Qaeda.

But President Bush's hollow assurance that his new plan for Iraq will work, in his own words, "because it has to," is similarly unconvincing. Even if his plan is successful, its cost -- broken promises to military personnel, sustained combat tours and horrific casualties -- makes one question whether it's worth it. President Bush's refrain that success in Iraq is critical to America's safety is sincere and likely has a ring of truth to it; however, the success he speaks of is far in the distance and speculative at best.

But even if success in Iraq has no direct link to U.S. welfare, there is more to consider. Iraqi civilians live with what amounts to a civil war. Their own government has become reduced to merely one side in the war and is struggling to maintain order. So who is looking out for their interests? It has to be the United States and the remaining coalition allies.

So when President Bush assures us that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them on our soil, he is only telling us half the story. Indeed, imagine an Iraqi civilian's reaction to that statement. Remembering the importance of Iraqi civilians changes the debate and is critical to the United States retaining some sort of credibility. It is also a moral imperative.

Roey Rahmil is a senior political science and philosophy double major.