Little Pitchers
Some days ago, my son (who turns six in September) noticed a picture of a soldier in the newspaper, and prepared to cut it out. (He cuts out pictures from the newspaper all the time. With all the newsprint on the floor of his room, you’d think he was a parrot.) And he asked why there was a picture of a soldier, and, told that he was fighting in Iraq, and reminded him of the conversations we’d had in the past about the war. And as usual, he asked whether we were winning.
My standard answer to him is, “it’s hard to say” which has the virtue of being honest. But one of these days that’s not going to be adequate, and one of these days he’s going to deserve a more serious discussion of the war than we’ve had to-date. Let’s say my son was nine years old – old enough to comprehend more than good guys versus bad guys. How, in narrative terms, would you explain the Iraq war? On the assumption that you didn’t want to say either that, “Iraq is only one front in World War IV, the global struggle against Islamofascism” or “we went to war so the President could get back at the guy who tried to kill his dad, make money for his buddies in the oil business, and protect Israel.”
Suggestions?
That’s a very good question.
I think a 9-yr old would understand the idea (true or not) that terrorism cannot flourish in a democracy and that GWB believed the best way to prevent another 9/11 was to decapitate a totalitarian regime in the Middle East and replace it with a democracy. As well as the fact that Saddam was a very bad man, had made and used WMDs in the past, and that therefore it was not completely irrational to believe he could do it again.
Starting from these premises, which assume good intentions on the part of the US Executive Branch, there are a few aspects I would emphasize and say a word or two about: perhaps the war’s questionable status in jus ad bellum (although perhaps not in so many words), the realization that most of the assumptions behind the war were dead wrong (no WMDs, erecting a democracy ex nihilo in an Arab country isn’t a walk in the park), the mishandling of the war and perhaps a few simple but profound lessons that can be drawn from it (the arrogance of an executive grown too powerful; the depth of cultural chasms and therefore the inability/unwillingness to understand the complexity of the situation on the ground). I would try to stress the fact that war is horrible business and that Real People are over there fighting and trying to live in difficult circumstances, but also that war is sometimes a necessary evil.
Finally I would try to make as eloquent case as I could for prolonging the surge as well as withdrawing, saying these are the two main strategies being advocated.
When prompted for an opinion, I would say “Well, what do you think?” and, whatever he answers, perhaps prod his assumptions a little bit with questions, Socratic dialogue-style (even though Socratic dialogue tries to steer the questionee to a certain answer, and I would not (consciously, at least) try to do that).
Afterwards we would probably both be depressed so I’d challenge him to a game of Mario Kart or rolling around in the grass.
— PEG · Jul 14, 04:42 PM · #
We went to war because great powers do, until they are no longer capable of doing so; and they are usually rendered incapable of doing so by doing so.
— Freddie · Jul 14, 05:24 PM · #
I would begin with the existential shock of 9.11, and its aftermath: a political atmosphere that simply assumed we were in an epochal moment, a critical juncture in our history. This feeling of playing for high stakes lowered our aversion to risk and led us to think that extraordinary moves were not only contextually appropriate, but necessary.
We thought the world had thrown us into a tackle football game, while others thought we were still playing two-hand touch. Who was right? — I’d say the latter, but who knows.
— JA · Jul 14, 05:46 PM · #
I think Iraq is probably the foreign policy equivalent of the dreaded “birds and the bees” talk. The issues in question are simply too complex and too emotionally charged to accurately convey to a six year old. Some things are best put off until later in life.
— Will · Jul 14, 06:24 PM · #
It’s tough to tell just one narrative at one time without writing a book. In bullet point blanks, I would say something like this.
1) Oil is currently very important to world civilization.
2) Saddam was a bad guy, and had been contained by about 10 years of sanctions, but containment was not sustainable indefinitely, and was beginning to erode.
3) After 9/11, the US was hypersensitized to the risk of terror, and wanted to see action.
4) For some unexplicable reason, Saddam consistently cheated on WMD inspections, which led bunches of people to conclude incorrectly that he had WMD.
5) Some idealists (neocons and a few neolibs) thought that we could remove Saddam and replace him with something that would evolve into a democratic society a la modern day Japan.
6) So there we were – Saddam had been threatening the world oil supply for years, some people thought he had WMD, some people thought that with him gone, democracy would flourish, and the Iraqi exiles wanted back in. The anti-war coalition had lost a lot of credibility when its more extreme elements opposed war in Afghanistan and predicted quick disaster. We went to war.
7) As it turns out, the US is not good at running an empire. Chaos ensued. Things look like they’re getting better now, but there’s a lot of history left to experience.
— J Mann · Jul 14, 06:32 PM · #
Saddam was an evil man, who did very man bad things to the people in his own country. We also thought he was going to try to attack us in some way, so we went there to take him out of power and set up a better government. Unfortunately, it turns out that he didn’t have the weapons that he thought he did, and setting up a better government is something we were very good at. So in the end we decided that the best thing to do was to let the people of Iraq try to solve their own problems, because we were only making it worse.
(Assuming that things actually go that way.)
— JS Bangs · Jul 14, 06:32 PM · #
I was just wondering when we hit World War IV….what happened in III?
— bobbie · Jul 14, 07:48 PM · #