One worry that I have from these London bombings is that people will decide to base foreign policy on appearances rather than practicality. In other words, Britain's decision as to what to do in Iraq should be based on what is in Britain's best interest, not on "proving it cannot be cowed."
The statement of many pro-warriors that this proves that Britain needs to stay strong and keep fighting in Iraq is, in my opinion, nonsense.
The argument is generally based on one of two arguments:
(1) To leave Iraq would show weakness in the face of terror; it would show that we (by "we" I mean countries in the coalition; I am American) give in to terror and would encourage more attacks to get us to give in more.
(2) The attackers want us to leave Iraq; therefore our being in Iraq must damage them in some way; therefore we must stay in Iraq to keep damaging them.
The first is dangerous because it allows terrorists to control our actions; our involvement in Iraq should be continued or discontinued based on how it affects our interests, not on simply trying to "stand up to terrorism." Not that we shouldn't consider whether or not our actions will be seen as "appeasement," obviously that should be a factor; there are cases when you may need to do something simply to show that you will not give in; but that should not be the only, or even the major, consideration here.
Our being in Iraq has benefits (presumably) and costs (definitely). Our policy should weigh those against each other and determine whether or not staying is a net benefit (as well as how we shall stay, e.g. how many troops). The British should determine how the London bombing relates, if at all, to the war in Iraq, and how that alters the cost-benefit analysis, and decide their policy accordingly based on all of the factors.
The second argument is also dangerous, because it assumes that if Iraq has value to the terrorists that it must therefore have strategic value. Put another way, the fact that a lot of Arabs don't want us in Iraq and are willing to conduct terrorist attacks against us for being in Iraq does not mean that our being in Iraq reduces their ability to commit violence. In fact, there are probably a lot of people who were previously non-violent who have become violent in response to our being in Iraq.
The standard response to this,m of course, is that no, they hated us long before we were in Iraq. Look at September 11! Look at the USS Cole! etc. etc.
Well, yes, there were Arabs that hated us long before we invaded Iraq in 2003. The question is whether or not our being in Iraq is reducing or increasing the number of Arabs who hate us. The belief that there are no Arabs who hate us now who excepting those who hated us before we invaded Iraq, or who would hate us anyway, is based on a very juvenile interpretation of this war. That is, it is based on the assumption that, since we are trying to good in Iraq, any Arab who bore us no ill will could not possibly change his mind because of the invasion of Iraq. Moreover, those who didn't like us but who weren't willing to attack us could not have had their hate increased as a result of our being in Iraq; if anything, our being in Iraq should make some of those who hate us come to love us. So definitely, no Arab terrorists could have become so in response to our invasion.
In any case, there is way too much simplistic analysis here; and that is not doing anyone any good.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment