Call it Recycling Saturday. In yet another salvage operation from the old blog, we’re carrying over our “Four Questions on Iraq” with Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham. This interview happened on March 2 of this year, before Davis took part in the Faith & Politics Institute’s Civil Rights Pilgrimage to Alabama. In Kelly Ingram Park, site of the violent Birmingham protests in 1963, we took the opportunity to ask Rep. Davis our Four Questions on Iraq. We hope to make this a continuing feature, asking as many of our national elected officials.
BW: What constitutes winning the Iraq War, or what objectives do we have to achieve before bringing the troops home?
AD: “Well, we achieved the objective of removing Saddam Hussein. We achieved the objective of creating a civil, constitutional governing structure in Iraq. So we have done what we set out to do. What we ought to recognize now is that going forward requires the self-determination of the Iraqi people.”
Do you think that objective is achievable?
“I don’t know, but I know that it rests on their shoulders and not ours. Ultimately the Iraqi people have to decide to become a country. They have to decide that being an Iraqi trumps being a Shiite or being a Sunni. They have to decide that nationalism is a value that trumps their individual sectarian differences. That’s up to them and they can choose one way or the other. But ultimately, the United States can’t dictate to the people of Iraq to become a nation.”
When this goes down in the history books, what will be the reason we went to war in Iraq?
“I think it will be seen as a fundamentally wrong calculation. I think that years from now people will essentially agree with the judgment today, that President Bush made a significant mistake. He underestimated what it would take to be successful in Iraq over a long period of time. He kept changing his objectives. He gave the country the wrong case for going to war in Iraq. He gave a case that ultimately did not hold up based on the evidence, and ultimately he did not level enough with the American people. So I think, as today, 20 years from now, I think this will be seen as one of the great foreign policy mistakes of the early 21st century.”
Since the invasion, do you think the condition of Iraq has improved or has it deteriorated?
“It’s good that Saddam Hussein is gone. It’s good that they have a pathway to progress. Obviously, there is a lot of killing and dying in the country. The Iraqi casualties far exceed the substantial casualties that we’ve had for our soldiers. The Iraqi wounded far exceed the substantial number of American wounded. So once again, Iraq proves the limits of one country being able to influence another. Politics is about the culture of a country. It’s about the character of a country. And ultimately if a country’s values or character don’t include pluralism or diversity, if a country’s values or character don’t include common ground, that country won’t stay unified.”
PREVIOUSLY: Four Questions on Iraq: Jeff Sessions
April 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Their baby would be, like, so caramel.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“They have to decide that being an Iraqi trumps being a Shiite or being a Sunni.” Has there ever been a time like that in Iraqi history? Any historians out there?