Those Americans who served and fell in Iraq: Your cause is a noble one

[BrainGlutton]

@rjung

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.”

You were expecting the Trojan War?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Correction:
Above references should have been to Cindy Sheehan, a peace activist currently residing in Texas, not Cindy Sherman, New York conceptual artist.

[MrDibble]

@elucidator

This is not just a slippery slope, this is a mined slippery slope.

I love this quote.

My take: one man’s “efforts to avert calamity [that we started]” are another man’s “driving the boot of imperialism down on the back of my head when my teeth are biting the curb”. So no, I don’t see the cause as a noble one, it is in fact the exact opposite. I believe history will bear this out.

Those Americans who served and fell in Iraq,: Your cause is an ignoble one.

[BobLibDem]

Ignore for this argument the deceit and treachery that got the US in this mess. What’s done is done, the question is what to do now?

There is the obvious humanitarian concern that a pullout would plunge the nation into civil war and many thousands would die. However, what really isn’t known is whether continued American occupation would prevent or merely delay such a civil war. No length of occupation is not going to change the fact that Iraq consists of three groups that do not trust or like each other. Hatreds that go back for centuries are not going to dissolve with years or even decades of occupation. I believe that the most likely event whether the US withdraws in 2005 or 2025 is that one of these groups would emerge the stronger and suppress the other two, the new constitution be damned. Personally, I’m in the camp that believes that US occupation only delays the inevitable.

Is the cause noble? I can’t say that it is unless we knew that these deaths made a difference. At present, I don’t believe that we can say that.

[bizzwire]

I would suggest that if our cause is truly noble, then it’s not unreasonable to expect it to be seen as such by others. The fact that a sizeable number of people in America and Britain think it was a bad idea, as well as majorities in just about every country (including our ostensible allies) doesn’t speak well of our nobillity in this adventure.

Here’s a cite from a Pew poll from March, 2004. Things haven’t gotten much better since then:

There has been little change in opinion about the war in Iraq – except in Great Britain, where support for the decision to go to war has plummeted from 61% last May to 43% in the current survey. In contrast, 60% of Americans continue to back the war. Among the coalition of the “unwilling,” large majorities in Germany, France and Russia still believe their countries made the right decision in not taking part in the war. Moreover, there is broad agreement in nearly all of the countries surveyed – the U.S. being a notable exception – that the war in Iraq hurt, rather than helped, the war on terrorism.

[rjung]

@BobLibDem

Ignore for this argument the deceit and treachery that got the US in this mess. What’s done is done, the question is what to do now?

Admit that Bush screwed the pooch, then get help from our friends and allies. Stabilizing Iraq at this point requires more people, more equipment, and dissolution that this whole screwup is nothing more than an American/Christian/Western oil grab. Getting substantial help from others (especially our Middle Eastern allies) would do a lot to address the issue.

Not that this will happen, given how many of those friends and allies have been pissed off by this Administration, and George’s own emotional insecurity that prevents him from admitting he’s made a mistake, but you didn’t ask for a realistic answer.

[TokyoBayer]

Funny, if we have to resort to claiming the reason to be there is so that terrorists wouldn’t take advantage of the chaos which we created. Saddam was much better at preventing terrorists from using Iraq that we could ever be. If preventing civil wars and terrorists are the sole reasons, maybe someone should ask him if he wants his old job back. (sarcasm intended)

For elucidator, I think that this is where the concept of recklessness comes in. Had Saddam actually been an eminent threat to the US, and if there hadn’t been any other method of solving this then it would have been noble. Perhaps, if Washington and London truly, but tragically believed that, then maybe those lost lives could have been noble, but since the lie was discovered:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

then, in the words of buzzwire, the deaths are tragic, not noble. That of course, is from the American perspective. From the viewpoint of those in Iraq who lives are torn apart, one would hardly question if they felt something less generous.

We, as humans naturally desire the deaths of our young to be noble, but wanting so doesn’t make it so.

Then comes the question, does staying help the long term prospect for a civil war and other humanitarian catastrophes or merely delay them? Even now, it’s not good for civilians now.

“I don’t see any difference between Saddam and the way the Kurds are running things here,” said Nahrain Toma, who heads a human rights organization, Betnahrain, with offices in northern Iraq and has faced several death threats.

So, the deaths of our young, noble or not has not brought help to many.

From the same article

Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country’s divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

When and where in Iraq will this nation building work? Basra province’s governor said in an interview that Shiite militias have penetrated the police force; an Iraqi official estimated that as many as 90 percent of officers in that province were loyal to religious parties.

So, while we may be keeping things from an outright civil war now, with the loyalty of the security forces to the factions, the country is appears to already headed towards being partitioned. We have yet to see if Iraq can settle on a constitution, but without the loyalty of the security forces or a compelling reason to work together, this looks to be a meaningless piece of paper. The future does not look good. And the American deaths increasingly look to be wasted, not noble.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@BobLibDem

I What’s done is done, the question is what to do now?

There is the obvious humanitarian concern that a pullout would plunge the nation into civil war and many thousands would die. However, what really isn’t known is whether continued American occupation would prevent or merely delay such a civil war. …

Valid argument. If the US is merely delaying the inevitable, there’s a solid case for “declaring victory and getting out.”

I can think of a number of scenarios whereupon we might squeek by though.

I believe that the most likely event whether the US withdraws in 2005 or 2025 is that one of these groups would emerge the stronger and suppress the other two, the new constitution be damned. Personally, I’m in the camp that believes that US occupation only delays the inevitable.

Very different argument. If continued US presence could prevent a civil war with set pieces and result in the installation of Shiite Islamicized strongman, such an outcome would be worth US lives IMHO. Obviously, this wouldn’t be our first choice.

Those making the “delaying the inevitable” argument are either predicting a set-piece civil war in Iraq (with a very high probability) or they find this scenario to be unlikely even if the US pulls out now.

Overall: The question turns upon: is there a plan which could plausibly avert civil war in Iraq? Well, we shouldn’t answer that question until we’ve examined such plans (preferably in another thread), should we?

[TokyoBayer]

@Measure for Measure

“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.)

But doesn’t the summarize the problem? That someone needed to have edited Bush’s basic scenario? “My fellow Americans, today we are not going to war in Iraq”

[DanBlather]

@TokyoPlayer

Funny, if we have to resort to claiming the reason to be there is so that terrorists wouldn’t take advantage of the chaos which we created. Saddam was much better at preventing terrorists from using Iraq that we could ever be. If preventing civil wars and terrorists are the sole reasons, maybe someone should ask him if he wants his old job back. (sarcasm intended)

You know, that’s about as good an idea as I’ve heard.

[Rucksinator]

They are not fighting for a cause, they are fighting because that’s their job; because that’s what they signed up to do, and because they took an oath to follow the order of their commanders.

That does not diminish what they do.

I replace defective computer parts for a living. I replace the parts that are shipped to me, based on the diagnosis of someone else.

Let’s say hypothetically that I am told to replace the system board in a laptop. I don’t know why this was recommended; I don’t have all the details of the call. So I take the laptop completely apart, replace the motherboard, and put it back together. Then I boot the PC back up and it still has the same problem, and then I realize that the problem is software related, and that all of my work was for naught.

Two points about this hypothetical:

1.) My work is no more or less “noble” because of the original misdiagnosis. I did my job. I don’t strive to do “noble” work; I strive to do quality work. Also, whether the computer belongs to the president of the Red Cross or the president of NAMBLA has no bearing on the quality (or “nobleness”) of my work.
2.) I would be a complete unprofessional asshole if I were, for any reason, to stop after taking the laptop apart and leave; leaving his laptop in dozens of parts all over his desk. Regardless of the reason that I started the job, I can’t leave until my job is done.

To directly answer the OP: No, we can’t pull out now, because that would leave the region in far worse shape than it ever was. I don’t think you’ll find too many Doves that disagree with me on this.

[TokyoBayer]

@Rucksinator

Regardless of the reason that I started the job, I can’t leave until my job is done.

To directly answer the OP: No, we can’t pull out now, because that would leave the region in far worse shape than it ever was. I don’t think you’ll find too many Doves that disagree with me on this.

In terms of your analogy, what the US did was to come in, rip apart the lap top, and then asked the guys to fix it themselves, as the US provided logistic support. Since the local repair techs hate each other and are busy fighting and killing over the tools, it’s not the simplistic example which you are comparing too.

Unfortunately, even simply by staying, we cause a certain amount of problems, including fanning resentment by some of the armed popluation. There are large doubts concerning the likelyhood of a unified, effective government, friendly to the US, and which won’t breakdown into a civil war. Does staying make things better? I don’t know if there is anyway of telling with any certainty, but in the meantime, we are staying at the a high cost of lives and money.

And, even more unfortunately, the chances of the region not being left in far worse shape, even by staying, don’t look good.