(The cartoon image above is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.)We sort of backed into the Vietnam War. Instead of just invading that country outright, we sent some advisors, then some soldiers, then involved the Navy and Air Force, and sent more soldiers -- and woke up one day to find we were involved in a full-scale (though undeclared) war. This eventually spawned a new term for getting involved in a war a bit at a time -- mission creep.
The original invasion and occupation of Iraq was blatant (though unnecessary). There was no doubt that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wanted that war -- and wanted it so badly they lied about weapons of mass destruction to get Congress and the American people to go along with it.
The same is not true of the new war in Iraq that we are being drawn into. The American people are weary of war, and don't want to be involved in another Iraq War. And I don't think the president really wants a new Iraq War either. But he has either been pressured into taking action by congressional hawks, or deluded into thinking that a second military action in that country can accomplish what the first full-scale invasion could not.
When the conflict in Iraq heated up again a few weeks ago, the president first told Americans that he would not send American soldiers back into Iraq. It only took him a few days to break that promise. He sent 300 American soldiers into Iraq to act as "advisors". Then he upped that number to over 500 soldiers, saying they were needed to protect our embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now the president has taken another step toward our re-engagement in Iraq. He has started bombing the Sunni insurgents in northern Iraq, and has warned Americans that this bombing could go on for months.
This is starting to look like the very definition of "mission creep" to me. How long will it be before the government realizes that those 500 soldiers combined with the bombing campaign is not enough, and more U.S. military assets are committed to this war -- and until we wake up one day and find we are once again in a full-scale war in that country?
The government is justifying their new march to war by claiming the "good" Iraqis must be protected from the evil terrorists who have invaded that country. If that was true then the actions taken might, just might, be justified. Unfortunately, that is just an excuse, and is not reflective of what is actually happening in that country. The truth is that this is just a religious civil war -- being fought between Sunnis and Shiites for the control of that country.
We started that religious civil war by invading Iraq and overthrowing the Sunni government there, and then replacing it with an equally corrupt Shiite government. And after starting the religious war, we were unable to establish a true coalition government (which is what must be done before the fighting will cease). And our re-engagement in Iraq is not going to accomplish that either. All it means is that we have chosen sides in that religious conflict (even though neither side is really a friend of this country) -- and are busy creating new enemies for the United States.
We should have learned by now that we cannot solve the Iraqis' problems with our military power. The religious battle in Iraq is something only the Iraqi people can solve. Instead of creeping toward a new war in Iraq, we should stop the bombing and pull out all of our troops (and diplomatic personnel too).
I like President Obama -- but I think his re-engagement in the Iraqi civil war is a bad mistake.
