The afterglow of the election has worn off, and now the debate about our plan in Iraq is heating up. The choices have been boiled down to “Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home.”
I feel its patronizing to boil down these complex choices to two-word soundbytes, but at least the sound-bytes aren’t intended to telescope the answer like, “Cut and run” did.
Going long is something that according to Henry Kissinger, is untenable.
Kissinger said, “If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.”
So going long is not a good option, because the goals of going long are unachievable.
Going Home has been declared a catastrophic choice. Senator McCain says we can “fight them there or fight them here.” Another soundbyte, which begs me to dissect its simplicity. Senator McCain, I would posit that we will fight them here regardless, and that we should be spending our resources on security our homeland, rather than “going big” elsewhere. Going Big is just more of a bad thing. It’s throwing good money after bad, and worse–throwing live soldiers into a fire to justify the ashes of those already dead. There is no justification. We attacked Iraq for no reason, and lit a powderkeg. The world is far, far worse because we invaded Iraq.
There are a lot more Islamic Jihadists bent on destroying the West now than in 2002 before we invaded Iraq. Going big or going long are both untenable, and will not solve or help anything.
Senator Rangel wants to reinstate the draft. This idea scares me to my core. I have a 14 year old daughter and a 12 year old son. Would I want them to go risk their lives for this debacle?
Going big and going long are not viable options. To me, the best option is to create three nations in Iraq (quickly), and go home.