Sunday, December 10, 2006

Surrender?

Now that the Iraq Study Group has issued its report, critics are using the word surrender to characterize its recommendations. The New York Post Photoshopped images of the faces of James Baker and Lee Hamilton onto the bodies of monkeys with the headline "Surrender Monkeys." And right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh offered the following criticism.

You know, bipartisan simply means Republicans cave on their core principles and agree with Democrats. That's why everybody is praising the stupid report. Because there's nothing in this about winning, there's nothing in this about victory. There's not anything in this about moving forward in a positive way. This is cut and run, surrender without the words.


As I've written before, I recognize a non sequitur when I see one, and it is a non sequitur to use the word surrender in this context.

1. We declared war on the government of Saddam Hussein. We defeated that Government and drove it from power. There's no one to surrender to in the old regime.

2. We helped institute a new government in Iraq, a government put in power as a result of the new constitution that was ratified by the Iraqi people and the elections that were subsequently held. We are in partnership with this government which, unfortunately, has not been able to consolidate its power. We can't surrender to the new Iraqi regime; that regime is perhaps the one group in Iraq that wants our presence.

3. There is currently armed conflict going on between extreme Sunni and extreme Shiite elements in Iraq. They are killing one another, and they are killing American soldiers, largely because our soldiers are attractive targets. But we cannot surrender to both sides in a civil war.

4. There are the Iraqi people. We are there for their sake, to help them build a free and democratic way of life. They responded by risking their lives to vote in the recent elections. They are the victims of the destabilized situation which exists. It makes no sense to surrender to the Iraqi people. We want them to win!

5. That leaves the situation itself, the reality that exists in war-torn Iraq ... the conflict, the chaos, the bloodshed. We can't surrender to reality itself, can we?

Or can we?

Perhaps in this sense, surrender would be a good thing: willingly to give up our denial, to see with open eyes the futility we have created, to acknowledge mistakes in judgment, to stare reality in the eye ... and not flinch from what we see.

To use religious language, perhaps the way forward is to repent of our sins, to ask forgiveness, to change direction, to seek the help of a higher power ... and to enlist the assistance of the world community.

So with this sense of the word (which, admittedly, is not what Rush or the New York Post had in mind), I am calling for surrender--giving up the delusion that the United States of America has any power by itself to affect the situation for the better. I am calling us to reach out to the hundreds of millions of moderate Moslems in the world and seek their help to mediate the intrareligious conflict between their Sunni and Shiite brethren. As a result, our standing in the world might just begin to be rehabilitated. And, more importantly, the suffering people of Iraq might have a decent chance to regain control of their own lives and their own country.