Pragmatism or Idealism: Moving On

Last week, President Bush traveled to Great Britain -- America's closest ally -- to show his gratitude for Prime Minister Tony Blair's steadfast support. This occasion prompted thousands of Britons to take to the streets, expressing their anger against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq. These massive protests were a vigorous exercise of free speech and citizen censure of government policy, and they were also a powerful reminder of the unpopularity of this war. But they were a waste of time. At this stage of the war, these kinds of protests are mostly useless.

The reality is that opposition to the war in Iraq is no longer a relevant political stance. Pondering whether or not going to war was a wise decision is not important anymore. Opposing the war is, in fact, a thing of the past. Personally, I did not think invading Iraq was a wise decision from day one. The war happened anyway, and now we must redirect our attention. The game board has changed, and now the relevant matter is how to manage the occupation of a conquered nation.

However, there is more than that. The most important issue right now is how to make sure that Iraq becomes a success story. There is no looking back. Whether we like it or not, the US has conquered Iraq and now we must make the best out of a difficult situation. We cannot change the past, but we can shape the future. That is what anti-war advocates do not get. They are absorbed in their self-righteousness and fail to adapt themselves to a changed political landscape. That is exactly why last week's protests in London lacked substance and purpose. As furious as one may be about this war, it is important to move on and participate in the policy debates that matter.

What is going on right now in Iraq is a high-stakes gamble. The Bush administration intends to transform Iraq from a vicious authoritarian regime to a beacon of democracy and good governance in the Middle East. That is an overwhelming and audaciously bold undertaking. It constitutes the most ambitious nation-building experiment that the United States has engaged in since the occupation of Germany and Japan. (Isn't it a little ironic that the commander-in-chief in charge of this daunting task disdained and belittled nation-building only three years ago during the presidential election debates?)

The security of the United States is now tied to the success of Iraq as a viable country. Pulling out American troops and leaving Iraq to its own devices -- as some propose -- would be a monumentally bad decision of catastrophic consequences. The US needs to stay -- conceivably for many years to come -- and it needs to get the job done right.

The problem with this is not that Bush wants to transform Iraq. The problem is that the Bush administration is not doing what is necessary for it to work. First of all, the US occupation lacks legitimacy, both domestic and international. It lacks the latter because international institutions were bypassed with arrogance and impatience. It lacks the former because the Iraqi war was sold under false pretenses. There were no WMD or Saddam-Al Qaeda links. Operating under a cloud of suspicion and without the support of the international community reduces the domestic and international support this endeavor requires.

Secondly, the administration's commitment to a prolonged and expensive occupation is questionable. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld takes every opportunity to maintain that the US has no obligation to reconstruct Iraq. A successful transition to democracy will only happen if Iraq's infrastructure is rebuilt, and it cannot do so alone. Iraq needs more US troops as well. The only way out of this present chaos is to strengthen the US military presence, to maintain order, and to speed up the transition to local rule.

Transforming Iraq will take billions and billions of dollars, precisely at a time when the US government is beginning to feel the pressures of enormous budget deficits for years to come. It will also cost more lives. The US will need broader legitimacy and a stronger commitment as escalating numbers of casualties and more expensive price tags begin to erode public support for this war. There is no easy way out now. The US is in for a long, difficult mission in the Middle East. The question now is not whether the US should have gone to war, but how to make Iraq a success. Proclaiming you are anti-war will not take you anywhere now, because it does not matter anymore. What matters is who has the best plan to rebuild a nation, which, for better or worse, is currently under the control of the United States.

Rodrigo de Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.