Quagmire. Long and tough road ahead. Vietnam. These are all phrases and ideas that have come into many of our minds as we see what has unfolded in Iraq over these past eight months since the United States-led military entered Iraq. I will even go so far as to say that whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a supporter of President Bush's foreign agenda or an advocate against it, these unfortunate thoughts have crept into your mind. A large portion of us at this University have discussed U.S. involvement in Iraq at great lengths in our classes, particularly those of us in the School of Public Affairs or in the School of International Service. And being the politically- and publicly-oriented student body that we are, we have all probably discussed the Iraq situation with our families and friends, and even probably with the person sitting next to you on the Metro or shuttle. It is normal to think the U.S. should simply leave Iraq as it is, not risk any further American lives, and let other world bodies take over the situation before it becomes "another Vietnam." If it were only so simple.
Such a decision by the U.S. would be a gravely wrong decision. Eight months earlier, the Bush administration made a collective, prudent decision by ousting the wicked regime of Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Saddam Hussein's government was a gruesome violator of human rights and a ruthless dictatorship, but that is not the only reason why the U.S.-led coalition acted. Saddam Hussein has a well-documented history of aggression toward his neighbors, namely Iran in the 1980s and the invasion of Kuwait that prompted the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm to cause him to retreat in the next year. He used chemical weapons upon Kurds in Northern Iraq and upon his neighbors in Iran. But legally speaking, the United States was justified to enter Iraq based on Iraq's consistent refusal to comply with United Nations ceasefires and agreements to disband chemical and biological weapons programs. Further legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was established when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which warned Iraq of serious military consequences if it did not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. These facts were clearly agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans, who harmoniously passed a resolution supporting President Bush in Iraq.
Now that it is clear that the United States had the right and national security duty to enter Iraq, I must explain why the U.S. must continue to be a leader and remain in Iraq, no matter how tough it may be. With the end of the Cold War over a decade ago, the United States has emerged as the world's lone superpower, and with this role has ultimate hegemony. Other nations look to the United States to act in reaction to humanitarian crisises and unabated aggression or threats of weapons of mass destruction. It is the role of the United States to lead in today's world. Also, as difficult as it may seem to believe now, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be better off with this U.S.-led intervention. Bringing democracy to Iraq and the region as a whole is a long-term goal, and it will be impossible to achieve if the United States cut its losses and leaves Iraq now. As easy as it was for coalition forces to enter Baghdad, it was misleading to think that maintaining control would be easy as well. Saddam's fierce and loyal forces are still at-large and resorting to terrorist activity, but now is not the time to leave. It may be difficult to think about the situation in Iraq as getting any worse in light of the bloodiest week since the "end of major combat" on May 1, but it will get much worse if the U.S. left.
The U.S. cannot abandon the great progress made in Iraq that sometimes goes unmentioned in a media that sells fear and violence. Roads and schools are being rebuilt, and oil fields are being protected - believe it or not - for Iraqi use. The U.S. is looked upon by the entire world as the true broker for Middle East peace and preservation of order in Iraq. Leaving now will give victory to terrorism and undermine future American actions abroad, whether they are military or humanitarian.
In conclusion, all of us in college go through what may seem as rough times, but our problems dwindle when we think of the grave situations our troops and their families face. I could not imagine the pain that hundreds of American families have gone through this year, having to bury their sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, and so it is difficult for me to endorse a continued military presence in Iraq. But the frightening prospects of greater chaos and violence without the American presence in Iraq are a danger to freedom throughout the entire world, the only world we have.
Sanjay Karnik is a junior in the School of Public Affairs.
