Oppressed: Free thyself

There's a quote from my favorite show, "The West Wing," which used to sum up my view of foreign policy: "We are for freedom of speech everywhere. We are for freedom to worship everywhere. We are for freedom to learn for every person." I believed that as the strongest democracy on the planet, it was the United States' job to protect those around the world who needed liberation from oppressive powers -- even if that job required us to use military force. I'm not so sure now. \nWith the election coming up soon, I have been involved in continuous self-reflection to form opinions and decisions on the major issues and, subsequently, for whom I will vote. Quite possibly the biggest issue of this year's election -- the war in Iraq -- has been one of the biggest issues upon which I have spent many hours reflecting. My decision: the United States shouldn't have gone anywhere near Iraq.\nWhen the offensive started more than a year and a half ago, I was in great support of the effort. After all, we thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States. I was a little angry with the name of the effort. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" seemed to signify the war's main objective was no longer WMDs. Nonetheless, I felt that if we could free the Iraqi people from oppressors and rid the world of a major security threat, then all the better for the world. That feeling lasted even after we gave up on expecting to find the weapons.\nHowever, recently I have thought about our current success (or failure) in Iraq. Our overall goal, at least in part, was to free the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator (check), help set up mechanisms for democratic elections (in the process) and train Iraqi security forces (not even close). All of these steps are in place so that Iraq can grow to become a self-sufficient, self-governing island of freedom in a sea of otherwise relative tyranny. But, is it working so far?\nI wonder whether it is our place to free others. No one came to free us from the oppression of King George. Sure, we had help from the French during the American Revolution, but they didn't initiate the fighting. We decided that the England's "repeated injuries and usurpations," as Thomas Jefferson referred to them in the Declaration of Independence, called for a statement of liberation. And we -- with a little help -- fought for that independence.\nBut with the situation in Iraq, it seemed like we initiated the conflict. While the Iraqi people were most definitely oppressed, they did not stand up as we -- and other successful democratic secessions from tyranny -- did and fight against their own injuries and usurpations. The United States seemed to discover one day that the Iraqi people needed saving. \nDon't get me wrong. I would love it if we could simply liberate every oppressed people on the planet. However, my concern is whether those societies that may not be ready for liberation can sustain true democracies. My concern -- with Iraq in particular -- is the future of the newly freed nation after our soldiers return home. \nFor the oppressed to be free from their oppressors, they must understand that they are existing under unfair conditions. These citizens must identify their oppressors and understand the reasons they are being exploited. Then they must stand up and fight for their independence -- but they must initiate that struggle. \nThe quote from "The West Wing" episode I mentioned earlier is taken from a speech about a situation in a fictional African country where an oppressive force commits genocide against its people. The fictional president says later about the situation, "Mothers are standing in front of tanks, and we're going to go get their backs." \nWe can't start anyone else's fight, but we can -- and should -- back up those who initiate self-liberation.