2008 Woodie Awards
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions: Why the US must withdraw from Iraq
Adam Waxman
Issue date: 1/28/05 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 2 next >
My friend Brian is a walking contradiction. Brian and I have worked together at my local CVS in Philadelphia for about two years. While working there this break, I had a series of fascinating conversations with him. Brian opposed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and he was proud to vote against Bush in 2004. Yet, as soon as he graduates, Brian is planning to enlist and ship out to Baghdad.
I don't support the leadership," he told me. "But ... if I can do a better job at reconstruction, with intentions to help, why shouldn't I go?" Brian also brought up the stop-loss policy (whereby the Pentagon forces troops who have served out their tours of duty to stay on until their entire unit rotates out in order to "maintain cohesion") and our heavily reliance on National Guard troops as another reason to enlist: "If there's some 50-year-old guy who's got a wife and kids who is being forced to serve, and I'm single and young, why shouldn't I rotate him out?"
I respect Brian, as well as his noble motivations for serving. Such motives fuel the vast majority of the rank-and-file troops who find themselves in an impossible situation. Sadly, noble intentions are not enough. If Brian goes to Iraq, and even if 100,000 soldiers with the same intent follow him, the occupation will still fail to leave Iraq stable and free. The reasons for this imminent failure have nothing to do with the intent of the men and women on the ground, and everything to do with the failures of the Administration in planning the post-invasion reconstruction.
The Administration failed to plan effectively for the post-war looting that has further decimated Iraqi infrastructure. For example, looters heavily damaged or destroyed thousands of Iraqi schools, according to Iraq's Education Ministry. In January of 2004, the ministry estimated it needs over 4,000 new schools to meet current needs. Other infrastructure suffered as well, including hospitals that needed new equipment and desperately needed medicines. Yet the Administration has held up reconstruction funds, spending less than 10% of the $18.4 billion allocated by Congress by September 2004.
I don't support the leadership," he told me. "But ... if I can do a better job at reconstruction, with intentions to help, why shouldn't I go?" Brian also brought up the stop-loss policy (whereby the Pentagon forces troops who have served out their tours of duty to stay on until their entire unit rotates out in order to "maintain cohesion") and our heavily reliance on National Guard troops as another reason to enlist: "If there's some 50-year-old guy who's got a wife and kids who is being forced to serve, and I'm single and young, why shouldn't I rotate him out?"
I respect Brian, as well as his noble motivations for serving. Such motives fuel the vast majority of the rank-and-file troops who find themselves in an impossible situation. Sadly, noble intentions are not enough. If Brian goes to Iraq, and even if 100,000 soldiers with the same intent follow him, the occupation will still fail to leave Iraq stable and free. The reasons for this imminent failure have nothing to do with the intent of the men and women on the ground, and everything to do with the failures of the Administration in planning the post-invasion reconstruction.
The Administration failed to plan effectively for the post-war looting that has further decimated Iraqi infrastructure. For example, looters heavily damaged or destroyed thousands of Iraqi schools, according to Iraq's Education Ministry. In January of 2004, the ministry estimated it needs over 4,000 new schools to meet current needs. Other infrastructure suffered as well, including hospitals that needed new equipment and desperately needed medicines. Yet the Administration has held up reconstruction funds, spending less than 10% of the $18.4 billion allocated by Congress by September 2004.
