Monday, November 19, 2007

Has the US military presence in Iraq brought a net benefit to the world?

Iraq says the worst is over in Baghdad, thanks to America's help, according to this LA Times article (viewing it requires a free registration to the website).

I have shifted toward agnosticism regarding so many of the issues related to our military presence in Iraq (I opt for neutral terms like "military presence" over emotionally charged terms like "invasion" or its rival, "liberation"). Moreover, I admit to ignorance and therefore agnosticism about way more political issues than philosophical issues (and wisdom encourages a precautionary neutrality regarding most philosophical quandaries).

I do admit to a few key opinions, however. Such include a tentative commitment to the specific proposition: if we completely and abruptly withdrawal our military presence from Iraq, then more harm will be done than prevented.

I am interested in hearing from my readers about matters related to the military action against terrorists primarily and geographically taking place in Iraq.

Comment on whether sending forces into the country was a good idea, and whether the matter has been handled properly since the decision. What would you have done differently?

I promise not to strip your comment out of its context and cite in an inflammatory post meant to undermine the greater political position of which each comment represents a part. But I reserve the right to make my own reaction known, with earnestly attempted humility and rhetorical clarity.

2 comments:

  1. Hey Louis,

    I am long time reader, first time commenter...

    Anyhow, you state your opinion as:
    "if we completely and abruptly withdrawal our military presence from Iraq, then more harm will be done than prevented."

    This needs to be qualified before any deeper comments can be made. After all, you are looking for people to break your agnosticism.

    I would start of by questioning who "they" are. In other words, who are we fighting. The real problem is who we fighting and why. We invaded Iraq. Are we fighting Iraqis or outsiders? Some say "they" are the radical Islamist. So if that is the case, why are they coming to Iraq to fight? Some say there is a civil war going on between Sunni and Shiite separatists. If so, they why are they killing American soldiers?

    I vote for immediate withdraw. Why? Because we cannot maintain our country economically while supporting this war. This may seem a reason void of heart felt care for the Iraqi people. But we simply cannot afford this war anymore. The hero is quickly losing strength, and drowning with the struggling victim. This unending war will end us. There may not be a timeline for the end of the war, but there is a timeline for our econmic downfall.

    I have more quips, but I will spare you. We are over there because we are a world power. If we fail to be a world power than how can any argument of benevolent safeguarding and rescue stand up. This is a (the) real threat to our country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Comment on whether sending forces into the country was a good idea, and whether the matter has been handled properly since the decision. What would you have done differently?

    I don’t think that we went into Iraq with benevolent intentions and I don’t think we were liberators of the Iraqi people in the same way the Allies in WWII were the liberators of the nazi-occupied countries. But neither condition is necessary for justification in the political context (although they are sufficient). All that is needed for political justification is the establishment of a contract whose terms are mutually agreed upon by the parties involved in the contract.
    In the case of Iraq and the US such a contract was the cease-fire agreement that brought Desert Storm to a close. Under that negotiation the cease-fire agreement was only valid so long as the terms of the contract were met. Iraq failed to meet those terms numerous times throughout the Clinton administration, and Clinton responded militarily on a case by case basis (e.g. Operation Desert Fox, etc.). Of course, Clinton did not have to respond at all when Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement; it’s up to the offended to decide how to respond to the offender and not responding at all is a legitimate type of response, so long as that’s what the offended decides.
    Bush, knowing what Clinton put up with combined with Iraq bullshiting the UN in regards to weapon inspection deadlines decided that he should finish what his father started. Under the mutually established ceasefire agreement, this is a justified response, and that’s all that is needed. End of story.
    Of course the Bush administration could never sell Congress, never mind the American public, this story; so he made up a few stories about WMDs and hyperbolized Al-Qaeda/Iraqi ties. That behavior, of course, is questionable in terms of justification. But that question, the question of whether or not Bush was just to sell the war as he did, is irrelevant to whether or not the war was just in the first place.
    As to whether US forces should stay in Iraq right now or not. Any county who invades another for just reasons is obliged to make itself available for reconstruction so long as the reconstruction is within the power of the invading country. I too am agnostic on this question. It depends on whether or not there is really such thing asa homogenous ‘Iraqi’ culture. If there isn’t, then our presence is merely prolonging the inevitable; if there is, our presence is necessary for a peaceful transition. I just don’t know enough about contemporary Iraq to say….

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.