As we consider our options of when to pull out of Iraq (it seems to boil down to either October or The End Of Days) I have been pondering why we're IN there. As an exercise, I'm formulating my opinion on the basis of Right Wing talking points. After all, how am I going to convince someone of my conclusions if they disagree with my premise? So the history, disregarding whatever may have been said or implied in the past, goes like this: Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11 but we thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs. It turns out he didn't (though he probably did and shipped them to Syria before the war started, clever bastard) but now we have to stay there to fight the terrorists who are flooding into the country to fight us.
Okay, any Republicans disagree with me so far? Good. Then here is why we need to get out.
It is phenomenally immoral for us to take over another country and fight our battles there.
It would be like the Palistine invading New York because they want to fight Isreal but leave Palestine intact.
As always, I invite logical criticism. I'm the Berlin Wall baby, tear me down!
One problem is whether it is our presence there that is driving the terrorism or it is also a function of age old tribal hatreds and warfare.
ReplyDeleteGranted, we were the impetus for the creation of chaos in the area. One thing Sadam didn't stand for was this type of instability. But now, having generated an unstable condition, is it more moral to run off and leave the country to be overrun by another repressive regime - one that they had been at war with before we upset the apple cart, and who want to move in, taking advantage of the confusion?
Another problem is that your premise is not entirely accurate. It was not our intention to take over another country. I dare say that would have been easier to accomplish. It was our intention to change the direction of another country to democracy and use them as a basis and example of how democracy can work in the Arab world. So far, dismal failure. I honestly don't know if it's because most of the people there do not understand or want self governance and prefer to be dictated to, or if a small minority can terrorize them into accepting control in exchange for personal safety.
The morality of molding another country to your way of life is less clear cut. If it is fundamentally better for humanity then it would be immoral not to try to help. However , there is that sticky problem of defining "better for humanity".
What is clear to me is that we underestimated the desire of the Iraquis to embrace democracy. We probably should have been more clued in to this by their complacency with being dictated to for so many years, in the face of Sadam's many violations of human rights against his own people.
It's pretty clear that we will be leaving relatively soon. It is not clear whether that will help or hurt the situation in Iraq. Much less how it will affect us.
btw, I'm not a Republican. I'd say I'm a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings. I just want the government to stay the heck out of my way as much as possible. It's when govt tries to solve everyone's problems that we end up with the biggest messes.
No tearing down, just some conversation.