Five years of deception, the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians and 4,000 U.S. soldiers, projected costs as high as $3 trillion, and the proliferation of militant Islamism - by any calculation, the Iraq war has been a historic calamity.
For on-the-ground perspective, I spoke to Ronn Cantu, an active-duty sergeant in the U.S. Army stationed at Fort Hood and a prominent member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Cantu served two 13-month tours in Iraq.
Daily Lobo: Is Sen. John McCain correct in claiming that U.S. defeat in Iraq "would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world"?
Ronn Cantu: As far as what could happen, you're only limited by your imagination. We don't know what could happen, but we do know what is happening, and that is, as long as we try to steer Iraq in a direction that the Iraqi people don't want their country to go, that's where the resistance comes from.
DL: What does McCain mean by "defeat in Iraq"?
RC: It seems like they've defined defeat as any sort of troop withdrawal. However, they haven't defined victory at all. There's no definition of victory - they only have a definition of "defeat," even though, militarily speaking, we've accomplished everything we went there originally to accomplish: Saddam (Hussein) is gone; the Iraqi army was destroyed - basically, the whole country is destroyed right now. The only real reason we're there is to pump all kinds of money out of the U.S. treasury at the expense of future generations of Americans.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
DL: Did you see any evidence in Iraq that U.S. withdrawal would precipitate ethnic cleansing or genocide?
RC: Oh, absolutely not. For most of the Iraqis that I interacted with, before the invasion there was no distinction really between Sunnis and Shias, and Jews and Christians were welcome. It's only been since the invasion that nobody's interacting. Some who are a little more progressive and remember the olden days don't have a problem with Sunnis or Shias or anything like that. I believe those days can make a comeback because it wasn't that long ago. I believe there might be a small surge in violence, but it would probably spike and go back down pretty quickly rather than staying at an elevated level. Again, it's hard to predict what could happen. Basically, I don't feel that any country should dictate the future of any other country. Only the Iraqi people should dictate the future of Iraq.
DL: President Bush has argued that one of the "consequences of retreat" would be an Iraq whose petroleum resources are seized by militant Islamists. Are you concerned that your actions may help create this scenario?
RC: I'm not concerned that my actions could precipitate that at all. I don't preach that anybody dishonor their contract or break their contract. If soldiers don't re-enlist, that's because they're dissatisfied with Army life and dissatisfied with going back to Iraq over and over and over again. It's not the stance of the Fort Hood chapter (of IVAW) that anybody breaks the rules. I wish the pro-war veterans would have their own Winter Soldier and make their argument. When we have our anti-war events, we have a lot of preaching to the choir, and I've seen the pro-war veterans do the same thing - they just preach to the choir. Mainstream Americans don't seem concerned, one way or the other, and that's what bothers us the most.
DL: In that same speech, Bush said, "Leaving (Iraq) before the job is done would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States of America." Is this how your fellow servicemen and servicewomen feel?
RC: I can't speak for my fellow servicepeople. I know that there's quite a few of us that I'm associates with, that I work with every day, that are against the war, but to say that I speak for the vast majority of them - I can't do that. I can say that it's my personal belief that it was bad policy that got those soldiers killed. Now the question is, how many more are we going to get killed using that same bad policy?
DL: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have vowed to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq but have suggested that some forces would remain. How do you feel about a residual force in Iraq to protect the U.S. embassy and to conduct so-called counterterrorism activities?
RC: Absolutely - as long as we're not dictating the future of Iraq. We have favorable relations with Germany and Japan. We can definitely have that with Iraq, so long as we're not patrolling their streets, and we're not dictating the positions that their government makes. I'm absolutely sure that there can be a future in American-Iraqi relations. I don't think it's too late for that at all. But as long as soldiers are fighting every day, and they know that there's nothing they can do to get them home any sooner, that's just the definition of a pointless war. When the soldiers know that there's nothing they can do, even if they give 200 percent, they can't come home any sooner. You just have a survival situation, and that's not a military strategy at all. Survival is not a military strategy.
Matthew Chavez is a political science major with a focus on international relations and a minor in Middle Eastern studies.
