The old doctor's adage of "first, do no harm" is difficult to apply in warfare. In fact, the express purpose of warfare is to do harm. The purpose of warfare is to kill, maim or otherwise incapacitate the subject into submission. Continuing awkwardly with this metaphor, the doctors of war are at best, oncologists; mastering excisions, chemotherapy (though outlawed), amputations, and in the most extreme cases, radiation therapy. They may be expert at determining the types of cancers ravaging their hosts, but cannot deal with the long-term causes of such ailments, let alone the baroque patterns of causation associated with other, more insideous long-term conditions.
US involvement in Iraq is a good example of the doctor of war applying his scalpels to a chronically ailing patient who ought to be treated through more indirect interventions. Our doctors saw the Saddam regime as a tumorous growth whose vessels and corpuscles directed a nation's energies towards its center, for its own evil ends. They envisioned a textbook procedure, short recovery under close observation and the patient returning to its formerly vivacious self; cooperative to our interests, contributing to the global community once again. If this analogy were to be applied to real people, capable of real litigation, these quacks would be sued for malpractice, banned from medicine, and exiled from their guild.
Iraq, and the broader war that this endeavor is purported to belong to, is the product of chronic illnesses. It's old news that much of the Arab-Turkic-Persian world has been left behind by the enormous progress of the rest of the world. We've observed political and social traditions ranging from the early renaissance era as seen in places like Qatar, Morocco, Jordan, even Palestine and Iran, to late bronze age, as witnessed in Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, Eastern Turkey, and certain parts of the Sahara. This isn't a cancer, it's a way of life. And here's where the metaphor falls apart. Unlike a patient, nation-states have an indefinite life span and an infinite capacity for structural change. They don't really die; they just get more mangled and ornery with each pass of the blade. Unlike most medical situations, the patient has not requested the doctor's services, and may actively oppose the treatment protocols.
Here's how this looks on the ground. In Iraq, the principle of "first, do no harm" was ignored or rationalized away by the principle of "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet". The doctors of war, in their belief that their medical knowledge surpasses the wisdom of the leity (even their own colleagues) move arrogantly forward, clamping arteries, removing organs, and casually injecting poisons. The patient is getting fed up, the anesthesia is wearing off, and pretty soon, things will get worse.
It seems to me that our fundamental course of treatment should be changed now. We should not police or patrol the streets of Baghdad, or the expanses of Anbar province. For the lives and money in play, we could buy a lot more success out of fortifying our green zone bunkers, sending heavily armored Arabic-speaking spooks out into the slums of Sadr City, or the tents of the deserts, and brokering deals with hard cash. We should stand behind a multinational push towards incremental democratic insititions in Iraq, economic and social development, and the careful cultivation of allies who understand that our interests are not to occupy as we claim, and who owe us big for whatever "local advantages" we grant them. This is not corrupt. This is doing business in a place with thick, sticky social webs.
We have no business standing between the affairs of this or that warlord. They will resolve their disputes better if we get out of the way, and if we stack the chips in favor of the more sensible players. People will continue to die for some time, but I would guess that the rate will remain steady, and over time, will decrease as territory is carved out, and winners and losers are allowed to shake out, all the while with our finger on the scales. Our children have no business placing their bodies in the crossfire of these disputes. This is a complex task for strategic professionals, not some 19th century battlefield hackjob, where weary generals will eventually discuss surrender over tea. The mid east does not function on raw power, as we are accustomed. This is a crazy game of negotiation, connections and unspoken rules, not some redneck romp into the desert. It may be that we are way over our heads no matter what we do, but nine tenths of our troops could come home in months if we decided to think this way. This isn't cut-and-run, this is wise up and play smart.
On the other side of the coin, Iran understands that getting involved militarily in the affairs of one of their neighbors would be a disaster. Iran has millions of Arabic-speaking citizens, and Iraq has millions of Farsi-speaking ones. To think that Iran hasn't passed hundreds of operatives off as Farsi-speaking pilgrims coming to see the holy sites like Qom is ludocrous. Iran is placing money and influence in the hands of the players they are betting on to win. For every family that is killed in a US airstrike, every teenage gunman we have to take down simply because we were there, Iran makes 10 new friends. The same logic applies to Sunni religious and Baathist sympathizers. When faced with cunning mullahs and imams, sheiks and lieutenants, there is nothing noble about doing something patently stupid. We need to start playing more of this game, and much less of this clumsy policing punctuated by inevitable war atrocities committed by our men and women. This is unbelieveably foolish.
The worse it gets, the more likely the doctors of war will push for radiation therapy. We really need a second opinion, stat.
No comments:
Post a Comment