Doesn't the U.S. have an ethical duty to defend Iraq?
- Thread starter Why?
- Start date
The Iraq government is a branch of the US government. I think the question is, do we have an ethical duty to defend the minority of Iraqis who want us to stay against the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave? Then the answer is clear.
The same dilemma was faced in Vietnam. There, the answer was to assist the emigration of some Vietnamese allies, but let most of them be executed or "re-educated" by the new government. Almost certainly less people died than if we had stayed in Vietnam, considering that the US killed or caused to be killed 4.7 million people in the region.
The same dilemma was faced in Vietnam. There, the answer was to assist the emigration of some Vietnamese allies, but let most of them be executed or "re-educated" by the new government. Almost certainly less people died than if we had stayed in Vietnam, considering that the US killed or caused to be killed 4.7 million people in the region.
I just don't understand why they don't divide it up 3 ways - setup a good balance of power and then skedaddle.
How can an Iraqi government with a representational democracy possibly be a branch of the U.S. government? Don't we have an ethical responsibility to the Iraqi people to allow them to keep their government? Are you seriously saying that given a free choice, the people of Iraq would rather have a dictatorship or a theocracy?
Yes they would rather not be run by the U.S, no matter what. Even the Kurds would like this.
It's a puppet government of the US, not a democracy. Only the one election was held for show; no more are planned and the people have no power to make an election happen.
It's not their government or else they would be able to change it, and the US would respect the opinion of the majority of Iraqis and leave. But they can't vote and the US has no intention of leaving.
No, I think that given a free choice, the majority would want a democracy.
In the abstract, yes. In reality, it was never part of the plan.
In the abstract, I suppose. But the idea of an independent Iraqi government should not be regarded as a serious idea inasmuch as it contradicted the reasons for going to war. Certainly, our administration spoke of regime change and freedom for the Iraqi people, but, to consider Zanket's point, that the Iraqi government is just "a branch of the U.S. government", hindsight suggests quite emphatically that cynical foresight was largely correct. More specifically, the Iraqis are free to elect their own government as long as the U.S. approves. If the U.S. does not approve, our government will find some way of undermining or breaking the Iraqi institutions. Consider the Chalabi melodrama. (What is he this week, by the way? Merely guilty? Faithful partner? Enemy sympathizer?)
Yes, in the abstract, the United States has ethical obligations including (to use your wording):
Right now, interestingly enough, many Iraqis would probably prefer a dictator to democracy. After all, under their last dictator, they had rudimentary health care, public education, and relative social stability. I'm guessing that prostitutes were probably worth more than the $8 a day they're worth now, though I'm more confident that it wasn't quite the same degree of a buyer's market.
Consider a recent CNN.com report:
While I don't doubt that some Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein sold themselves to make ends meet, the idea of forbidding a 17 year-old son from work because of the violence in the streets is a difficult perspective to grasp. As expressed in a recent New York Times editorial written by six soldiers returning from Iraq:
The thing is that transitions to freedom are rough. It's how many years later, and the Russians still haven't grasped the concept completely? Even without the violence, it's a hard transformation of economic and mundane life. Freedom from government means more paperwork, more bureaucracy, a new kind of tyranny. The upside is that your HMO isn't going to shoot you in the head for pointing out how much they suck. The downside is that it takes time, and the fruits of liberty will most likely only blossom for the current generation in Iraq; the harvest will be for their children and grandchildren.
What the Iraqi people seem to want most of all is a chance to get on with life. Had our government sent the troops honestly, ensured the job would be done diligently, and not made this whole thing a political stunt of staggering proportions, they might have done well enough. Perhaps the effort would have required shocking house-to-house searches through the whole of Iraq. Perhaps the civilian toll would be soul-chilling in its own right. But our leaders have managed to make out of this a completely new disaster, one in which the U.S. perpetually fuels the fire that burns it. The Bush administration has endured the slings and arrows of political life, and should be happy with that outcome. After all, it is our soldiers, and mostly the Iraqi people, who suffer the true damage and horror of this war. By comparison, a life sentence to be viewed as a monster by a portion of the population you never respected, anyway, is a good deal.
In the abstract, yes, the United States owes Iraq many obligations of moral and ethical duty. In reality, though, it does not seem a stretch to point out that only the naîve ever actually expected that the current government would come through on those obligations.
Yes, we have obligations. But no, we don't, because we're the United States of America, and such notions apparently don't apply to our government.
We'll see what the '08 election brings. The people are sort of schizophrenic about their politicians.
____________________
Notes:
Why? said:
In the abstract, I suppose. But the idea of an independent Iraqi government should not be regarded as a serious idea inasmuch as it contradicted the reasons for going to war. Certainly, our administration spoke of regime change and freedom for the Iraqi people, but, to consider Zanket's point, that the Iraqi government is just "a branch of the U.S. government", hindsight suggests quite emphatically that cynical foresight was largely correct. More specifically, the Iraqis are free to elect their own government as long as the U.S. approves. If the U.S. does not approve, our government will find some way of undermining or breaking the Iraqi institutions. Consider the Chalabi melodrama. (What is he this week, by the way? Merely guilty? Faithful partner? Enemy sympathizer?)
Yes, in the abstract, the United States has ethical obligations including (to use your wording):
• The "duty to defend the Iraq government until it can defend itself".
• The duty "to the Iraqi people to allow them to keep their government".
• The duty "to the Iraqi people to allow them to keep their government".
Right now, interestingly enough, many Iraqis would probably prefer a dictator to democracy. After all, under their last dictator, they had rudimentary health care, public education, and relative social stability. I'm guessing that prostitutes were probably worth more than the $8 a day they're worth now, though I'm more confident that it wasn't quite the same degree of a buyer's market.
Consider a recent CNN.com report:
While I don't doubt that some Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein sold themselves to make ends meet, the idea of forbidding a 17 year-old son from work because of the violence in the streets is a difficult perspective to grasp. As expressed in a recent New York Times editorial written by six soldiers returning from Iraq:
The thing is that transitions to freedom are rough. It's how many years later, and the Russians still haven't grasped the concept completely? Even without the violence, it's a hard transformation of economic and mundane life. Freedom from government means more paperwork, more bureaucracy, a new kind of tyranny. The upside is that your HMO isn't going to shoot you in the head for pointing out how much they suck. The downside is that it takes time, and the fruits of liberty will most likely only blossom for the current generation in Iraq; the harvest will be for their children and grandchildren.
What the Iraqi people seem to want most of all is a chance to get on with life. Had our government sent the troops honestly, ensured the job would be done diligently, and not made this whole thing a political stunt of staggering proportions, they might have done well enough. Perhaps the effort would have required shocking house-to-house searches through the whole of Iraq. Perhaps the civilian toll would be soul-chilling in its own right. But our leaders have managed to make out of this a completely new disaster, one in which the U.S. perpetually fuels the fire that burns it. The Bush administration has endured the slings and arrows of political life, and should be happy with that outcome. After all, it is our soldiers, and mostly the Iraqi people, who suffer the true damage and horror of this war. By comparison, a life sentence to be viewed as a monster by a portion of the population you never respected, anyway, is a good deal.
In the abstract, yes, the United States owes Iraq many obligations of moral and ethical duty. In reality, though, it does not seem a stretch to point out that only the naîve ever actually expected that the current government would come through on those obligations.
Yes, we have obligations. But no, we don't, because we're the United States of America, and such notions apparently don't apply to our government.
We'll see what the '08 election brings. The people are sort of schizophrenic about their politicians.
____________________
Notes:
Damon, Arwa. "Iraqi women: Prostituting ourselves to feed our children". CNN.com. August 16, 2007. See http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html
Jayamaha, Buddhika, Wesley D. Smith, et al. "The War as We Saw It". NYTimes.com. August 19, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Jayamaha, Buddhika, Wesley D. Smith, et al. "The War as We Saw It". NYTimes.com. August 19, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Divide it like Germany after WWII? I never thought of that. I like it. :bravo:
Today on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html
the irony is dripping. The US generals are puting in a help wanted ad.
'Dictator needed'
Qualifications...'must be Sadam-like'.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html
the irony is dripping. The US generals are puting in a help wanted ad.
'Dictator needed'
Qualifications...'must be Sadam-like'.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
No. You have to make choices based on how much good they will cause. For example: if the US realized that by staying they were simply delaying an inevitable internal conflict and during this delay many people will die needlessly and huge expenses will be passed on to future americans, then they need to leave. You can't be obligated to fix something you can't fix even if you were stupid enough to believe you could.
If I decide that you are not living your life correctly and I intervene. Tell you what to do, set up in your house, control your time and then realize one day that you are not improving and further realize that I shouldn't have been so presumptuous, then even though my leaving might return you to a lazy, or drug using, or violent life, I need to go.
what if that person is the caregiver/breadwinner to a whole entire family. Walking away from that person condemns the whole family. Should you try and help them?
Interesting. From that, I would take it that you think the New York City police should pull out of New York City altogether? And LAPD should pull out of Los Angeles?
Hmm, in fact, I can't think of any large city in the world where, using your ideals, the police shouldn't just pack up and leave.
Baron Max
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
1) I know you are intelligent enough to reread what I wrote and see my arguement does not necessarily mean I agree with what you wrote.
2) Police do not MOVE INTO OUR HOUSES AND SET UP SHOP.
3) Police are hired by members of a group to monitor and control the members of that group. They are members of that group themselves. If a majority of the people in New YOrk decided that the powers or role of the police should be different, it would become different. If that is not the case, then, yes, the situation is similar. (Certainly there have been situations which are similar to the occupation of Iraq with police here. Go back 50 years and it was primarily white cops who policed black neighborhoods and racism was clearly systemic. That was very much an outsider situation. The people who were being policed were not represented and their rights were systematically violated.)
4) The situations are not the same. The situation between the two kinds of Muslims in Iraq is not mirrored here. Your argument is comparing apples and chairs.
The odd thing is I know you agree in relation to yourself. Let's say I actually knew more about nutrition than you and I decided to prolong your life and improve the quality of it and I moved into your house and at gunpoint enforced my views. You actually did get healthier in some ways. Somehow, Max, I suspect that you would not give a shit about my 'success' you would want me out. And if I fell asleep at the wrong time, I will just bet I would end up on the wrong end of, at the very least, a baseball bat.
To parallel the Iraq occupation. my intervention would also cause you stress and reduce the quality of your life, especially from your perspective.
Sure they should pull out if they are invaders. What a bizzare perspective of equivalence you have. Occupying armies have the status of the police in your town?
hint: the police in New York are not foreign invaders from Iraq. They don't speak only Arabic. They don't go house to house kicking doors down without warrants and haul men away for 'interrogation'.
The problem is that in defending Iraq from itself, we would have to control the population to such a great extent that it would be unethical to do so. I feel this isn't even possible for a nation such as ours. Perhaps Nazi Germany could do it at the peak of their power.
Or Saddam; the latest news is that "democracy" is not a viable option for Iraq; the Iraqi government disagrees. They believe they should at least be able to regulate their own army (controlled by US army) and intelligence (controlled by CIA) before any such decision is reached.
But of course, no one is interested in what the Iraqis think.
And how do you know this to be the case? Have you surveyed the population? I seriously doubt a majority wants us to leave before the situation is stabilized. Especially not the Kurds, who we have been defending since the first Gulf War!
Are you sure they are thier to defend iraqis?? I think of all those poor children watching thier parents being killed and left orphans or the children being attacked. The senseless violence and the taking of others loved ones from them.
Yeah, you're so cool and honorable with those big fucking guns. More like disgusting!
Yeah, you're so cool and honorable with those big fucking guns. More like disgusting!
Last edited:
How could you leave from Iraq right now? And miss all the OIL $$$$??? No way...
***notice sarcasm***
***notice sarcasm***
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The question assumes that (a) Iraq can be fixed, (b) that the United States is capable of effecting that fix and (c) that the U.S. can do it at a lower cost to the people of that country than they (or others could).
If I throw a baseball at your house and it breaks a window and kills your dog, so I have an ethical duty to bring your dog back to life? No, because that's not possible. Do I have a duty to personally fix the window? No, because I am not a glazer and would not do a good job fixing the window myself. I may have a duty to pay for a craftsman to come fix your window and to pay to have your dog buried and to compensate you for his loss, but that's somewhat different from the rule being espoused.
The ethical duty, once you've caused a harm, imo, is to do as much as reasonably possible (you do not, ethically, have to bankrupt yourself) to put the aggrieved party into at least as good a position he would have been in had you not harmed him, or as close to it as you can under the circumstances.
In this case, the Iraqi people were not in that good a position before we came along. Even with all that has happened and is happening, there is an argument to be made that they are better off now than they were under Saddam...so have we "damaged" them? Second, even assuming the strife is net damage that requires our attention, we have no way to fix it. Arguably again, our involvement may well malke the situation worse given the number of people in Iraq who do not want us there. The insurgency is simmering now and may boil over once we leave...but if we stay 10 years the insurgency may continue to simmer all that time (and still boil over when we leave). The discounted present cost to the Iraqi people could be lower if we leave in the next year than if we stay for 20. (and that ignores the costs to us).
I understand the "you break it, you fix it" point, but the situation in Iraq is too complicated to just assume that our remaining there will fix it. (Not that I would argue for a precipitous withdrawal either, but rather that in the face of the ambiguous ethical question of what we "owe" the Iraqis, I feel better about making decisions based on what is in our best interests. That calculation is also murky, but I find it easier to grasp than the alternate question.)
If I throw a baseball at your house and it breaks a window and kills your dog, so I have an ethical duty to bring your dog back to life? No, because that's not possible. Do I have a duty to personally fix the window? No, because I am not a glazer and would not do a good job fixing the window myself. I may have a duty to pay for a craftsman to come fix your window and to pay to have your dog buried and to compensate you for his loss, but that's somewhat different from the rule being espoused.
The ethical duty, once you've caused a harm, imo, is to do as much as reasonably possible (you do not, ethically, have to bankrupt yourself) to put the aggrieved party into at least as good a position he would have been in had you not harmed him, or as close to it as you can under the circumstances.
In this case, the Iraqi people were not in that good a position before we came along. Even with all that has happened and is happening, there is an argument to be made that they are better off now than they were under Saddam...so have we "damaged" them? Second, even assuming the strife is net damage that requires our attention, we have no way to fix it. Arguably again, our involvement may well malke the situation worse given the number of people in Iraq who do not want us there. The insurgency is simmering now and may boil over once we leave...but if we stay 10 years the insurgency may continue to simmer all that time (and still boil over when we leave). The discounted present cost to the Iraqi people could be lower if we leave in the next year than if we stay for 20. (and that ignores the costs to us).
I understand the "you break it, you fix it" point, but the situation in Iraq is too complicated to just assume that our remaining there will fix it. (Not that I would argue for a precipitous withdrawal either, but rather that in the face of the ambiguous ethical question of what we "owe" the Iraqis, I feel better about making decisions based on what is in our best interests. That calculation is also murky, but I find it easier to grasp than the alternate question.)