Heather Manes
Staff Writer
At the close of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon called for a “Peace with Honor” arrangement for the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam. Though the withdrawal was successful, the supposed “honor” contained within the mandate was not. The American initiative was cut short by Ho Chi Minh’s detrimental — and wholly underestimated — offensives.
Upon entering the Vietnam War, America saw itself as superior to Vietnam, which, by all means, was not a far-fetched assumption. However, our lack of humility ultimately resulted in our defeat.
To say the least, the Vietnam War bruised America’s political agenda.
Thirty years later, America entered into the Iraq War. With the same mentality, America invaded the Middle East, expecting to import democracy to a culture that has known nothing but dictatorship for centuries.
Now, after five long and grueling years of political turmoil and costly offensive agendas, Iraq is negotiating a mandate for withdrawing all United States combat troops from Iraq by 2011.
The American goal of establishing a stable, democratic Iraq is far from accomplished, but was that goal legitimate in the first place? Is it America’s job to establish democracy where we see fit? Did we act in Iraq’s best interest or our own?
Since the Cold War, America has unofficially operated as the leader of the free world, often embarking on humanitarian missions across the globe and intervening as a mediator in foreign conflicts.
To a degree, American political and military involvement have proven beneficial, such as by combating genocide in the Yugoslav wars. Yet, in conflicts, such as those in Vietnam and Iraq, America clearly oversteps boundaries.
It is not America’s job to create a worldwide democracy, yet we have become the Wal-Mart of global politics. Around the world, we are trying to implement American ideals, driving out our competition and replacing it with a satellite of our government. We have chained democracy around the world, so the sun never sets on the American Empire.
Behind that upbeat façade, though, is an institution with its own problems.
For example, billions of dollars are spent on pork barrel projects that could be used toward education. Our president would rather spend his time watching Michael Phelps than negotiate the United Nations’ expiring mandate with Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Presidential candidates spend more time at party fundraisers than with their constituents.
Who are we to implement our “superior” ideals on the world? Iraq is vastly different than the United States in terms of culture, history and ideals, so why would an American democracy work in a completely un-American setting?
The American government did not act in Iraq’s best interest, but rather in its own. We entered into Iraq not because Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were working together, but rather to find “weapons of mass destruction.” We then attempted to establish a democratic ally in a conveniently oil-rich area.
Was Saddam Hussein working with terrorists? Probably. Was it the right thing to overthrow his regime? Most likely. Is democracy the answer to Iraq’s political problems? No, but it is the answer to some of ours.
The question arising now, though, is whether or not we should agree to Iraq’s timetable for withdrawing American troops. The Bush administration has conditionally and half-heartedly agreed to a withdrawal, but spokespeople for the administration explained that “aspirational time horizons” are the preferred method of withdrawal, rather than Iraq’s requested June 2009 and December 2011 concrete withdrawal dates.
Again, Americans are attempting to assert their power unfairly. Iraq is a sovereign state within itself, yet the nation must ask us for permission to take our troops out of their country. They do not want our help, yet, like an annoying big brother, we insist they are governing themselves incorrectly. Consequently, we take the wheel and do it ourselves.
Globally, American approval is declining. We put the undue burden of the world’s problems on our shoulders, and, as our debt becomes larger, our resources become thinner.
America should cede to Iraq’s demands so a new world order can be formed — one in which we are no longer the global police officer. Instead, America should serve as a role model so smaller countries have the liberty of developing in their own right and their own way. The world needs an America that does not reason through violence, but by example.
09-04-2008