Absent continued American presence in Iraq, there would a three-way civil war. One that could kill tens or even hundreds of thousands.
Such a civil war would also have uncertain geopolitical consequences: would the House of Saud fall? Would the oil keep flowing? Would the world tip into depression?
Why are we in Iraq?
We are in Iraq because Dick Cheney believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and because the Vice President wasn’t interested in weighing conflicting evidence.
We are in Iraq because Paul Wolfowitz believed that the road to Jerusalem ran through Bagdhad, and not the reverse. We are in Iraq because Paul Wolfowitz believed that Liberal Democracy is an institution that would construct spontaneously, if only exogenous barriers to it were removed.
We are in Iraq because Donald Rumsfeld saw no need for extensive post-invasion planning, despite British advice to the contrary, and because he feared that such plans would leak and slow the rush to war.
There are other reasons.
The Point:
Even if you believe that the American leadership has made massive geostrategic errors, it nonetheless remains the case that an immediate pullout would prompt a humanitarian catastrophe. Efforts to avert calamity are noble, especially when the disaster would have followed from our decision to invade.
The OP opposes an immediate pullout from Iraq. A timed pullout would be another matter entirely. I’ll note that Juan Cole happens to advocate a pullout of American troops from urban areas soon. That’s different. Interestingly, a similar recommendation was made by the center-right think tank Stratfor 1-2 years ago.
The OP is intended to address the question: For what noble cause are American soldiers dying in Iraq? The answer is (again): attempts avert humanitarian, geopolitical and economic catastrophe are noble.
So if I set fire to your house, then, at risk of my own life, rushed in at the last minute to save you, your kids and little fluffy, the beloved Boston terrier, would that count as a “noble act?”
I almost entirely agree with you. Whether or not one agrees with the war itself, or the way the reconstruction was handled, I feel that we need to stay there until things right itself. The time to worry about troops dying or hemhorraging treasure was before the war, and apparently it wasn’t a big worry for enough people, nor was it during the 2004 election. In every sense of the word, this is our problem, we own it, and we need to fix it.
(BTW, I know that there are some whom believe our very presence there is fueling the insurgency, but I hold that his isn’t necessarily a permanent condition. I do not feel that we should sacrifice Iraqi lives to save American lives simply because of our own incompetence.)
I was thinking about post-invasion casualties, or rather about Americans currently dying in Iraq. Again, Q: For what noble cause are American soldiers dying in Iraq? A: Attempts to avert humanitarian, geopolitical and economic catastrophe are noble.
I’ll let others address the culpability of GI Joe and Joesephine in the initial invasion, should they choose to do so.
I suppose you’re right. You should attempt to right any wrong you’ve done to the best of your abilities. It’s not necessarily “noble,” it’s just the right thing to do, and I think most people on both sides of the aisle feel something along the lines of the OP.
However, the OP appears to feel that if someone dies, their death must be noble, and invents a ‘nobility clause’ to justify their deaths. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying it. If their deaths have to have some meaning, my take is that they gave their lives to atone for their leaders’ evangelical zeal for war. That’s tragic, not noble.
Even if you do go back to rescue those things, should you realistically expect anything other than a long jail sentence, with maybe a little time off for good behaviour?
It’s my belief that civil war in Iraq is inevitable. The US presence merely slows the pace of its outbreak.
As a historian, I tend to look back instead of into the future, so I don’t have the comfortable distance to which I am used. Perhaps history will some day prove me wrong, and I sincerely hope this is true. I do feel strongly, though, that civil war is inevitable and that we will be fighting this war again within the next quarter century.
History may someday show that the soldiers’ deaths were for a noble cause, but to me, it feels like throwing pebbles before a train to try to impede its progress. Maybe history will call this the First Step, but there’s a long, long, bloody road to travel yet.
My soul aches for all of the anguish yet to come.
A commentator I heard on this subject once remarked that democracies are a lot like love: it can’t be forced. I would add: it can’t be faked, nor can it be rushed or imposed. It just has to happen. Those involved have to want it to happen.
bizzwire
---- However, the OP appears to feel that if someone dies, their death must be noble, and invents a ‘nobility clause’ to justify their deaths. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying it.
Oops. I don’t feel that way. Actually, I think I mucked up the thread title, though I’m currently happy with the OP. Attempts to avert humanitarian, geopolitical and economic catastrophe are morally sound.
furt
------ Framed as such, there can be no real debate; is an answer of “None” allowed?
Sure. Those advocating an immediate pullout would disagree with the OP.
I tried to frame a question both narrow and topical.
Topical: “I want one answer: What is the “noble cause” MY son died for. There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing.”
That’s from Cindy Sherman.
Narrow: Should we pullout immediately from Iraq or follow some other policy? (Other policies include the current GWBush strategy, a pre-announced phase down and a retreat from urban areas. I don’t want to choose among other policies here. I just want to discuss the “immediate withdrawl” scenario.)
I am torn. It would be so much more comfortable to be sure there is a right answer.
On one hand, I do believe that it would be unconscionable to walk out after we broke it. We have an obligation to put it back together.
On the other hand, as long as we remain there we are going to be a focus of hate and a detriment for any peace. T. S. Lawrence begged the English not to get involved in this part of the world. He told them the only thing that could bring them together was hate for outsiders and that they would strike at will then slip back into the desert. They would always be fighting mirages.
I am beginning to think that perhaps an announced pull out would force those that are turning a blind eye to the insurgents in their neighborhoods to decide to become part of the solution. Then again it could simply become massive slaughter from now till the end of time. These people can carry hate for generations in a way Americans don’t seem to comprehend.
I disagree. Preventing catastrophe is morally sound. Starting a catastophe is not, but that doesn’t conflict with my first point. (And yes, I’ve shifted to “morally sound”, which is the reasonable version of the politically charged phrase, “Noble cause”.)
Cindy Sherman would disagree with you there, apparently.
It seems we picked up a new one of those today, or at least the nebulous talk about not letting terrorists win has been sharpened to a specific scenario:
Has anyone previously claimed that Zarqawi and bin Laden, al Qaeda, have a ghost of a chance of taking over Iraq? To me, that seems as likely as our suddenly finding massive caches of ready-to-use WMD’s.
The original cause could be seen as “noble”: protecting America from Saddam’s “vast stockpiles” of evil mojo. Does a cause cease to be noble if the premises that support that noble action are false? That’s too many for me, I fold, subtler minds will judge.
If we remain in Iraq, we will end up choosing sides. Almost certainly, we will end up choosing the Shia/Kurdish alliance. Being the majority, they have the most claim to legitimacy. And I have little doubt that they would be willing to permit us to spend our blood and treasure against their enemies.
And then what? Will they love us for it? Given our past record of bending them over whenever it suited our purposes, aren’t they more likely to see it as a cynical realpolitik manuever that they are entirely justified in exploiting?
Suppose the Kurdish/Shia governance decides to actively oppress the Sunni minority? Suppose the Kurds are given legal standing to remove those Sunni Arabs who were relocated in Kurdish territory by evicting the legitimate Kurdish owners? Suppose they decide that armed force is justified. Suppose the Sunni’s resist? Aren’t they “insurrectionists”? And aren’t the insurrectionists allied with Al Queda?
This is not just a slippery slope, this is a mined slippery slope.
“Their goal is to turn Iraq into a failed state like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control in [del]of[/del] Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.”
(Edited by M4M to make the President’s scenario more plausible.)
Yes, a failed state could permit additional terrorist training camps. Somehow though I think that might be the least of our problems.
The problem with this analogy is that the Damn Fool who started this Damn fool War isn’t putting his life on the line (or, indeed, anything else of his own value) for the subsequent “noble act.”
M4M’s quote raises an interesting question: is it the perogative of the Executive Branch to define and/or redefine the noble cause if it finds that circumstances warrant? Is that one of the War Powers? Should there be some sort of special proclamation when a new version of the noble cause is rolled out, or is it sufficient simply to pretend that the version 2.0 always was the noble cause?
And the people who died protecting us from Saddam’s evil mojo. Is that credit transferable? Can their motives be retroactively adjusted to fit present circumstances, if the President so determines?