Ethnic Cleansing is Our Friend

Today there will be a major protest against the war in Washington, and a smaller one here in Berkeley. This comes after a week in which our leading general and ambassador in Iraq glossed over the hard realities there, and in which the President sought a non-sensical "return" on a "success" that we have never achieved.  George Orwell is squirming in his grave.

I'm not in favor of a precipitous pull-out, but neither do I want a generations-long occupation of a land where we do not belong. Democracy cannot be imposed by guns, tanks, or whispered prayers to God in the Oval Office.

Of all the arguments for maintaining our presence in Iraq, the supposed benefits of ethnic cleansing are the most chilling.  After all, once the Shiites have killed all the Sunnis in a neighborhood, there will be no more fighting. And vice versa; let the blood spill, so freedom can reign.

Am I being excessive? You be the judge.

Here is David Brooks in the Times on September 11, 2007--precisely six years after the anniversary of a date that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction (emphasis mine):

"First, there’s clearer evidence than ever that U.S. forces can inhibit violence. Despite all the debates over the data, violence over all is on the decline. In neighborhoods where 30 and 40 bodies used to show up a night, now only one or two do. After rising in 2006, violent civilian deaths of all kinds are down 45 percent since December.

Second, the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over. For years, Shiites and Sunnis have been purging each other from towns and neighborhoods. That ugly process may be nearing its completion, and stabilization may be possible. As Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell wrote in The Times last Sunday, “Iraq’s mixed neighborhoods are sliding toward extinction.”

At least Brooks acknowledges the ugliness, but in a dispassionate way that sees ethnic killing as just one step towards a better world. That's a mighty low standard indeed.