Both Barack Obama and John McCain had no intentions of backing down from the interventionist foreign policy when it comes to terrorism. However, they were taking different stances on this war. There are two key differences between Obama and McCain on this issue. First, Obama realized going to war in Iraq was a mistake and needs to be reckoned with, while McCain was and is still in favor of the war. Second, Obama realizes that America’s national interests, as well as Iraqi interests will be best met with the phase out, and withdrawal; while John McCain is willing to remain for an unspecified amount of time.
Barack Obama favors a well planned phase out in a period 16 months. This phase out will require the participation both the American and Iraqi governments in order for it to be successful. He is not planning for a complete, irresponsible withdrawal. His plan is for a residual force to remain in Iraq for the purpose of protecting American diplomats and citizens, but at the same time keeping an eye on Al-Qaeda activities. This force would also offer their services, if needed in helping to train Iraqi military, “as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism”He wants the responsibility for the Iraqis not on the US government but on the Iraq government. He says that “Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country” and using their “oil revenues on their own reconstruction”.
In 2001, McCain’s “War is Hell. Now Let’s Get on With It”, was featured in The Wall Street Journal. He states, “We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.” It is obvious that this has not changed over the years. His campaign in Iraq is for success for both the American military and the Iraq government. He sees it as a moral obligation to make sure that Iraq is able to sustain itself and for the government to be able to govern its people effectively. Withdrawing from the country without accomplishing this would be a grave mistake. Therefore, deploying more troops, and increasing the budget would be making sure that Iraq does not become a pawn to sectarian violence, terrorism and neighboring countries. He sees it as a necessity and a matter of justice to keep the American troops situated in Iraq because other wise it might be failure if American troops were to pull out and then leave Iraq in chaos. Until “Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country”, McCain sees not road home for the American troops.
Eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War, about 12 years of economic sanctions, Saddam’s regime and the present war has not been kind to either Iraq or its people. Justice for these people is overdue. Since “the justice that equalizes and abstracts is an unjust justice” , we cannot pursue perfect justice because we might be condemning the Iraqis to injustice. I agree with Obama’s plan as it would serve most justice for the Iraqis; but it would not fully serve justice to the Iraqis. If he secures the socio-economic rights of the people, it would not change the underlying hatred and misunderstanding between the ethnic groups. Reconstruction of the state will require the participation of all these groups, and if they are not made to feel secure in their own communities, all the work that has been done would be sabotaged.
Ultimately, justice would require that freedom and equality exist, but to achieve this there needs to be plural order. To achieve this plural order, there will be a lot required from both the Iraqis and the Americans. We have heard and read that “justice without grace is injustice” and that for justice to occur there needs to be the act of embracing others. As it has been discussed in class, there needs to be embracing of some sort. Volf calls this the “grace of embrace” (24). It is the justice that the Iraqis need. This will mean some serious dialogue and a willingness understanding each other. It will take place on two levels; one between the Americans and Iraqis, and two, between the different ethnic groups. Volf’s idea would involve a deeper understanding where the Americans will have to see themselves through the eyes of the Iraqis and vice-versa. To pursue justice better, Americans will have to understand exactly why Iraqis are critical of the American culture and culture. The Iraqis might find out why the US feels the need to be in their country, and secure their land. This would be a risk. Each culture might find that they are lacking. Even more painful, they might find that, their beliefs that they have been parading for the world to see are not what they intended them to be.
Then there is the element of love, which would shape justice. However, Steve Garber’s lecture pointed out that in order to come to this, we need to know, and then care, before we can love and act. This is scary. If the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis were all to come to an understanding of each other, it would destroy their presuppositions of each other. Listening to each other will demand some kind of order or change, where they will actually have to learn to live with each other’s differences. They will have to learn the process of rendering grace upon each other. Even for those of us who have a grasp on this Biblical concept, it is scary for us to pursue this.
Neither ethnic group nor government can afford to seek revenge, because that will create a whole different set of problems. To seek reparations would require that there is an understanding, and to come to this, it will take more than just listening. We can only embrace those we have forgiven and reconciled with. We have to come to a redemptive part of this narrative where both the Iraqis and Americans embrace each other and forgive each other for the past and present misgivings. The Iraqis need to look at their past and learn from it so that they can step into a future where all three groups are respected, and given an equal voice and a sense that they are important for the rebuilding of Iraq. Neither culture nor government will be betraying their conscience if they reached out and agreed that their past had condemned to the situation that they are presently in. It would be naïve to ask for a justice where each side can seat down and wipe the slate and start a fresh, but maybe acknowledging that states, groups and classes need each other in order to enjoy economic growth, would be a good place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment