Saving
Face or Saving Lives
By
Richard W. Crockett
Political
pundits tell us that the American people are Òfed upÓ with partisan politics
and that last weekÕs election began the restoration of the political
center. While this trend, if it be
so, may help to resolve issues in American domestic politics, it holds out
little hope when it comes to the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq confronts this nation not with alternatives
of left and right, or liberal and conservative, or even of Democratic and
Republican solutions. It confronts
us with a choice between saving face and saving lives.
The
administration has presented the American people with the HobsonÕs choice of
selecting between that of Òcut and run,Ó and of Òstay the course.Ó With the debate framed in this manner,
the first alternative appears unpatriotic and the second appears senselessly
futile. The first involves saving
American and some Iraqi lives and the second involves saving face. The elusive quest when cast as saving
face is based upon the hope that in the end the war will produce ÒsuccessÓ or a
Òvictory.Ó The difficulty is that we donÕt know what either success or victory
looks like.
The
election that seemed to denounce excessive partisanship also denounced the war
in Iraq. A majority wants the
troops to come home. Also, there
is a large number who want to get out of Iraq Òresponsibly.Ó But is it acting responsibly to
continue to sacrifice lives permanently in order to save face for the time
being?
Some
argue that if the U.S. pulled out its forces, a Òblood bathÓ between Shiites
and Sunnis would follow. A blood
bath is going on now, and it unnecessarily is including Americans. It s true that it could get worse, but
that is the choice of the Islamic extremists and the insurgency.
President
Bush has cast this war as an Òideological conflict.Ó An ideological conflict is a conflict over ideas.
Democracies handle such conflicts in stride. The Iraqis seem unable to do that which suggests that
democracy, or any other form of deliberative government, does not exist and is
not likely to exist soon. To
understand the war in Iraq as an ideological conflict is to over simplify what
is happening there. However, that
view does imply that it cannot be resolved by military means and requires
political means because ideology is about politics, unless we are saying that
this so-called ideological conflict is between our ideology and theirs, rather
than between two versions of Islam.
If it is between our and theirs, we have no place in it for it is theirs
to decide. If it is the latter,
between two versions of Islam, we still have no place in it because, as a
nation, we do not embrace either Islamic ideology.
The Iraqi Shiite and Sunni militants are
the principle protagonists and theirs is not merely a conflict over ideology, but over theology. Such
conflicts are virtually never resolved because they spring from faith—and
faith rejects reason, which is essential to deliberation and democracy. In faith, believers are ready to die
for their idea, and in the present conflict, with suicide bombers, these Òtrue
believersÓ are doing so readily.
John Fiske, the 19th Century American historian, once quipped
the man Òwho was ready to die for and idea must have had only one.Ó That appears to be the case for the
Muslim extremists.