We’ve been in Iraq for five long, unpleasant, years. It’s cost 4000 American lives, unknown numbers of Iraqi lives, and countless hundreds of billions of dollars. I’m not sure I know anyone who thinks it was worth it, or who doesn’t want to get out of there as fast as we can. Senators Clinton and Obama say they’ll pull out quickly, regardless of the consequences. Senator McCain says we have to finish the job.
Colin Powell famously said that, “if we break it, we own it.” The question I’m asking today is, “What do we owe the Iraqi people?”
If, as everyone seems to believe, our departure means an immediate and bloody, three-way civil war in which tens of thousands more innocent lives will be spent, and in which the Iranians, Syrians, and possibly even the Turks are likely to involve themselves, do we have a moral obligation to stay until there is some reasonable semblance of stability and order?
Many people lament the damage the war has done to America’s image and moral stature around the world, but what will be the effect on our relationship with other countries if we leave Iraq in regardless of their ability to defend themselves? Will we be seen as trustworthy and responsible, or selfish and short-sighted? Will we be safer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Well, we've opened Pandora's box and now we have to close it in such away as to allow the Iraqis to have some semblance of a normal life -- as much as this horrific situation will allow.
Unfortunately, there is no cohesive plan by either party. The war in Iraq and Washington will rage on and on. Maybe if we address the moral issues involved, and not make oil the imperative, we may yet end this disastrous war while salvaging some semblance of honor.
What do we owe the American People? No WMDs, a civil war over resources, and true terrorists taking advantage of the chaos. The world thinks we suck anyway. Punch and Judy are in a dysfunctional relationship. They keep up their nonsense in part because they play off of our position. We are just enablers.
BTW, what do you mean we, Lone Ranger? If someone steals your credit cards and throws you into debt are you going to honor the thief's purchases? Am I going to lend credibility to the current administration by shackling myself to their policies and mischief once they are gone? It is bad enough the economy is in ruins and we have one foot stuck in the quicksand in Iraq.
Our economy is in ruins? That seems like a gross overstatement. It sounds like the Hankster had a large portion of his retirement in Bear Stearns stock. I would direct him to the www.youhave rights.com website so he can file his grievance and join the class action lawsuit. We have to find a way out of Iraq that does not further destabilize the area. Is it possible to do this? I do not think Obama or Clinton will be able to accomplish that with their plans. McCain is the only candidate who is honest with the American voter on this issue. With his experience he realizes how difficult it will be to disengage ourselves from this conflict.In addition we bear some responsibility to the Iraqis and the region since this was a preemptive action by our government. Remember how difficult it was to withdraw from Viet Nam? Right now the Dems want to win the White House. They will say almost anything to accomplish their goals. Does anyone really believe that they will do what they say they will do in Iraq if they are elected? I would be willing to bet anything that their policy changes before they set foot in the White House. It will require a significant expenditure of time/effort/money to get out of Iraq. Who do you think will do the best job? Obama has no exprience whatsoever in this regard, Clinton embellishes her "wartime" experience, and McCain spent years in a POW camp. I think the answer is obvious.
Woody, I am glad you brought up Vietnam. Was our withdrawal honorable? If we had done it differently do you think it would have saved any more lives than would have been lost if we had stayed to do the job "correctly"? Would America's standing in the world have made a whit of difference? Am I missing something here? I don't want to lose any more American lives in a prolonged scenario which will result in an eventual kleptocracy whose interest will be to sell oil to the highest buyer. Let's not fool ourselves, The only real grassroots movement in Iraq is that cutie pie, Moktada al-Sadr. Everyone else in the elected government are stage pieces put there in a roundabout way by the presence of us.
You can dress up chimps in black tie and serve them a banquet but all you are going to get is a food fight.
This is not a military problem unless you are in the military.
What we do not owe Iraq is one more American life or limb.
We, as a nation, have sacrificed nothing in this so called "generational struggle" unless you think, as GWB actually said, paying taxes is the sacrifice we make. The US is in a war in Iraq. Our military is. And they are on their own.
Although an honorable man, I think John McCain is dead wrong on Iraq. Iraq is not the central front on terror. That front is on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Always has been. "Experience" hasn't done anything for us so far. Rumsfeld and Cheney have decades of "experience" have brought nothing but disaster.
I believe that we're still there because the current administration would rather eat a goat's head than admit a mistake and will do everything and anything they can to leave this disaster to the next administration to deal with and take the blame for.
The latest dust up between warring Shiites is just latest example of the fecklessness of the current government. If they can't put down al Sadr's militia without our involvement and then run to the Iranians to broker a deal, we are in a no win situation that will only ensure more casualties and expense. This place is going to blow up whenever we leave so we might as well leave now.
Birdman, I guess it's true that great minds think alike. But where are they hiding?
This terrorist monster has a few heads. Yes, the Afg/Pak border is where it is happening. But what about Saudi Arabia and every cleric spreading jihad? Perhaps if the American people were sharing in the joint sacrifice we would be striking at the head rather than going after Hitler everywhere but Germany.
The other part of this equation is energy independence. With a Texas oil man in the White House it is just the case of the hammer seeing everything as a nail. Strangely, when GWB was governor, he enacted wind power legislation, making his state #1 in wind power. I guess Exxon isn't into wind. But if you drive down the cost of energy you take the power of the purse out of the hands of our enemies.
Republicans believe government interference is wasteful. What is wrong with this picture?
At the moment, Iraq is in worse shape than when we went in there. We blame GWB, but the world blames America.
If we leave now, Iraq will slip further into chaos and barbarism, and the world will blame us for that, too. Not only that, but someday in the future when we need allies, they will look back to Iraq and see an unreliable, self-centered nation that acted twice without regard for the greater good.
If we stay a while longer there is a decent chance we can stabilize the country and save tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. There will be a price to pay, and while it will be more obvious than the payback for pulling out, it will be less severe.
This isn’t about defeating terrorism, it’s about doing the right thing and rebuilding our relationships with the rest of the world.
DB has a point but I don't think that the country can be stabilized with such a large American footprint in the area. Our presence, especially a military presence, seems to act like a red cape to a bull for some reason. I don't think the arab world hates us so much as resents us -- as if we're somehow responsible for there "humilations".
As long as we're there to keep people from killing each other, they can be as bellicose as they want with no real risk of a big fight breaking out. If we get out maybe they'll realize after a while that getting along is a lot less painful than blowing each other up.
Might work. What do I know?
I agree that in the long run, big picture, we need to be out of the middle east. All we need is a solar-powered economy and we can turn our backs on the region forever (as long as you don't care what happens to Isreal).
Israel is something else entirely. However, the last time I looked, they seemed to be perfectly willing and capable of defending themselves. Our boots on the ground is not the solution. Carriers in the Med and the Gulf will suffice I think.
While discussing the Iraq end game, I suggest reading A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam by Lewis Sorley. Does this sound familiar? We were involved in a Civil War (incorrect), it was unwinnable (incorrect),the South Vietnamese will not fight (incorrect), and little was to be gained by completing the mission(maybe incorrect). It appears what we "knew" to be true was wrong. "Victory" may or may not have been probable or even desirable in Vietnam, but it is possible that our attitudes/behavior may have been a negative influence. I regret that it may have had a negative effect on our troops in Vietnam. One of my concerns is that we are trying to make important decisions about Iraq in the setting of a divisive "political" debate. Our military personnel and Iraq itself are caught in the middle. As Mr. Sorley points out, this usually results in a less than desirable outcome.
Well, I’m so happy we were able to reach a consensus on this – for the good of the country. Next up: repealing Roe v. Wade.
well, I for one understand why we invaded Irag and it had nothing to do with WMD, it had to do with SH - a guy who will go down in history as the dumbest MF/Dicator of our lifetime. His two sons were worse than him.
We told SH that we were going to take over his country.
If his son's are alive today we will be in a fight for 50 years as they were worse than him.
In fact, we will not know the true cost of the war in Irag for 50 years -
I was hoping we could tackle gun control next.
As an aside, I attended a hearing at the US Court of Appels for the DC circuit this morning. The issue was a Guantanamo detainee and his status as a combatant (by law, the DC circuit is the only court that can make this review).
The proceedings were, in a word, facinating. The judges (one Bush 1, one clinton, and the other Bush 3) were incredibly prepared, pointed in there questions to both the justice department and the appellants attorneys. the attorneys from the DOJ did not comport themselves very well and were asking the judges to defer to their interpretation of the president's power as commander in chief. The judges were having none of it and pressed the DOJ attorney accordingly. I have no idea how it will turn out but it sure made me proud to watch the proceedings.
I take issue with Woody's author's assertions concerning the Vietnam war. However, I don't think it would be productive or wise to pick at that scab.
Post a Comment