PoliticalSports: The Ultimate Game

By invading Iraq, eliminating Saddam and setting up a democratic government, they would achieve a number of goals. One, a developing democracy and the military presence of the U.S. would force the Saudis to make some substantial internal changes. They would clamp down on extremist groups and stop the transfer of money to terrorist groups. There was also the hope that they would implement some more personal freedoms, especially for women. Two, Iran might throttle back its support of terrorism with the U.S. right on its border. Three, Syria, Libya and other problem states would change policies if they thought the U.S. might target them next. Fourth, countries in the region could institute political reform. This is a very broad brush stroke view, but it does provide a wider perspective of the invasion.

The result is obviously tainted by the disastrous implementation of the war. However, there have been some successes. Libya definitely changed its policies very quickly. Syria moved out of Lebanon, and has been cooperating with the U.S. in several ways. The Saudi's made a couple of gestures to political freedom and are cracking down more on extremists. Pakistan is now our ally, as is Afghanistan. Palestine had democratic elections. We certainly don’t like the result, but they were fair according to official observers. What happens in the long term might work out, who knows? The situation with Iran is a mess, but that seems more a case of our ineptitude than their genius. If we had managed the invasion properly, the situation with Iran could be vastly different.

I don't want to minimize the problems with this war, as Iraq totters on the brink of chaos. I think we all know the nature of the Bush Administration’s management skills by now. Say what you will about Our Illustrious Leader (OIL), I don’t like him, but if you think in the longer term, 20-30 years, and as something exceedingly complex, covering a whole region, with numerous players, and the U.S. having many shifting alliances with not so perfect partners, the invasion makes sense.

The American electorate would never have bought this involved reasoning for war. The policy didn't fit 5 word sound bite they can understand. One only has to read the various surveys indicating things like; 20% of America still think Saddam had direct involvement with bin Laden and 9/11, or that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, 13% do not know what a molecule is, 1/5 of Americans still think the Sun circles the Earth, and only about half know that humans did not live during the time of dinosaurs (NYT) to understand why some of our leaders have little respect for the intelligence of the public. They have good reason.

Congress agreed to the smokescreen because they understood the issues. We face a truly dangerous foe, requiring new tactics. This war is one move in a high stakes chess game, destined to last many years. Bush told us this would be a long war, fought on many fronts, across more than his administration. He knows it, so does Congress. Many of us, including the media, forgot his words. The Democrats and Republicans are now using the WMD issue for their own political purposes later this year. They still cannot tell us why they voted to support the President after 9/11, but they can use the smokescreen against G.W. for his mismanagement, which is substantial.

We should keep this long term view in mind before we uncategorically demand a withdrawal of troops. We trying to do more than install one democracy in the Middle East. The longer goal is right, though our methods are faulty. That is what needs to change