Fixing what we broke

The other night I was having drinks with some Church friends (I stick out in this Church like a sore thumb as the "Lone Conservative;" well okay, except for the other conservatives, but we're a minority) when Iraq came up, and a friend of mine, though liberal, agreed that we need to stay in Iraq "to fix what we broke."

At the time I didn't disagree because 1) I was surprised that he agreed we needed to stay, and IX.) I didn't think it was all that innaccurate.

But I've thought a little about it since then, and think now that that's a slight mischaracterizarion, though an understandable one.

I don't think we "broke" anything when we invaded Iraq, other than the yoke that Saddam had hung around the necks of those unfortunate people. What I do think we did was "loose" something. And I don't think we anticipated the fury of what we loosed because we don't hold -- or even begin to understand -- these ancient hatreds that run back 600, 800 or more years. We're a young, pragmatic country that generally looks at social conflict as an opportunity to change something for everyone's benefit. Certainly not, at any rate, as a reason to massacre people. Put simply, and maybe too crassly, where's the profit in that? If I kill them, I can't sell them my widgets!

So, being who we are, we expected the Iraqis to accept the conquest and begin to act like us, and pragmatically work to rebuild their nation so we could get out. (And, in fact, many many Iraqis have in fact taken that tack.) What we did not expect -- well, at least I didn't -- was the virulent, irrational "payback" between Sunnis and Shiites based on perceived wrongs going back generations.

Anyway, mea culpa. That's what happened. That's what we loosed. So I guess I'd have corrected my friend, had I thought of it at the time, that we don't need to stay in Iraq because of what we broke, but because of what we unwittingly set loose.

Small difference, but I think more accurate. Here's a recent photo of a small difference being more accurate: