I’ve been agnostic about the Iraq occupation for the past couple years, due to the following uncertainty: we shouldn’t have gone in, but now that we have, is an immediate pullout really in everybody’s best interest? Mother Jones magazine raised this question recently in a feature called U.S. Out Now! How? The editors sum up the dilemma in the following way:
For those of us who argued against invading, it is tempting to simply demand an end to “Bush’s War” and wash our hands of it. But as General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told us, “Your conscience is not clean just because you’re a peace demonstrator.” In other words, just because you weren’t in favor of going in doesn’t mean you’re not responsible for what happens when we pull out.
I have a feeling that we’re doing more harm than good, and that the violence would drop if we left. But honestly, I just don’t know enough about what’s going on there.
One thing I do feel strongly about however, is that we need to keep in mind not just the facts on the ground, but how mind-blowingly expensive this war is. So far it’s cost about $1 trillion dollars. To get a sense of just how much money that is, see this graph comparing the amount spent in 2007 for Iraq vs. research on “other” energy sources.
(No, really — you need to see that graph.)
Even if there was a clear goal to staying there, an unambiguous benefit, it would still be shocking that we’re hemorrhaging that much money. The fact that there isn’t a clear benefit makes it much worse.
And remember, this isn’t just a question of “money” — it’s about what the money could have been spent on instead. Whatever you think of their specific ideas, this photo essay and this article at least stimulate the imagination: universal healthcare, feeding and educating the world’s poor, 14.5 million years of Harvard education…
With thoughts like these in mind I’ve decided to get more active in whatever ways I can, starting with a student silent march this past Friday.
