Doesn't the U.S. have an ethical duty to defend Iraq?

[madanthonywayne]

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

Well then, what are we arguing about? I don't want us there forever either. Just long enough to ensure that chaos does not erupt when we leave. We must leave very gradually and even will need to increase troop levels from time to time.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Well then, what are we arguing about? I don't want us there forever either. Just long enough to ensure that chaos does not erupt when we leave. We must leave very gradually and even will need to increase troop levels from time to time.

We're arguing about whether or not there is an ethical duty to remain there until things are "fixed" based on the notion that we are responsible for the screwed up state they are in.

That's a separate question from whether we have a duty to withdraw in an orderly manner, or in any manner we want. By "precipitous withdrawal" I mean a withdrawal over the next few weeks without much warning to the Iraqis. A non-precipitous withdrawal might take us a year (at the outside), so the Iraqis would know it was coming and their government would have time to prepare. In either case chaos would ensue, but at least there'd be time for the Iraqis to have some contingencies in place.

There's a big difference between warning them we're leaving so that they can draw up plans to minimize the chaos themselves, and our own trying to eliminate the chaos before we consider leaving.

 

[madanthonywayne]

There's a big difference between warning them we're leaving so that they can draw up plans to minimize the chaos themselves, and our own trying to eliminate the chaos before we consider leaving.

So you support an orderly withdrawl but see no obligation to support those in Iraq who have helped us? You think it is ethical to go in, stir things up, ask the population for help in killing the bad guys, then just leave them at the mercy of those same barbaric monsters?

 

[spidergoat]

Well then, what are we arguing about? I don't want us there forever either. Just long enough to ensure that chaos does not erupt when we leave. We must leave very gradually and even will need to increase troop levels from time to time.

That's a contradiction. Whenever we leave the Shiites and Sunnis will battle it out. The Shiites don't want to give up control, since they have been getting the short end of the stick for decades under Hussein. It is difficult to give the Sunnis much power, since they are a minority.

Who are the "bad guys", madwayne? You seem to think they are separate from those we are helping. In fact we are arming both sides.

 

[Pandaemoni]

So you support an orderly withdrawl but see no obligation to support those in Iraq who have helped us? You think it is ethical to go in, stir things up, ask the population for help in killing the bad guys, then just leave them at the mercy of those same barbaric monsters?

I think it is ethical to go in, free them from a tyrant, ask them to get their shit together, give them a little time to do that, then withdraw when then fail to do so and the alternative is an open-ended engagement that could last decades.

As for the "same barbaric monsters", it's not. The monsters we fought going in were Saddam's goons. Now there are multiple gangs of monsters (including gangs drawn from amongst those we freed, like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army--both Shia militias, yet somehow part of the problem.

Besides, you make it sound like we can definitely save them...that's not clear. We can definitely prolong the insurgency, but there is no good evidence that we can end it. If we leave in ten years--that's 10 years of a prolonged insurgency--the violence that erupts when we leave can stiill be just as bad or worse as it would be if we left tomorrow. In that case, we merely dragged the suffering out and not ameliorated it. Sometime you just have to tear the bandage off the scab quickly, not peel it off slowly. It may hurt either way, but a short sharp pain can be better than a longer, drawn out one.

There is no easy military solution in Iraq. There is a political one...but it's not clear that our presence helps reach it. In light of the uncertain benefit we provide to the Iraqis, it's better to consider the costs and benefits to ourselves and base our decision on that. As I said above, that's also murky, but not as murky as the path to peace in Iraq. I am about as hopeful that the Palestinians will achieve democracy, as I am the Iraqis.

My best guess for a "fix" in Iraq, honestly, would be to transition control over to a U.N. peacekeeping force under non-U.S. control; preferably with a relatively large contingent of soldiers from Middle Eastern nations. They's likely be viewed as more of an honest broker than the U.S. is, even though many of our troops would have to sytay yunder a U.N. banner. (My real best guess for how to win the peace for the Iraqis is to slaughter everyone who might possibly pose a risk to stability there, and letting collateral damage be damned while doing so...that would set us up for a century of terrorist attacks on us, from the ranks of a hugely swelled and militant al Qaeda , but I bet we could end the insurgency in Iraq within a year.)

 

[madanthonywayne]

I think it is ethical to go in, free them from a tyrant, ask them to get their shit together, give them a little time to do that, then withdraw when then fail to do so and the alternative is an open-ended engagement that could last decades.

Reasonable. But I don't think it's in our interests to leave the place in chaos.

There is no easy military solution in Iraq. There is a political one...but it's not clear that our presence helps reach it. In light of the uncertain benefit we provide to the Iraqis, it's better to consider the costs and benefits to ourselves and base our decision on that.

Again, reasonable. But wouldn't our leaving the place in chaos leave a power vacuum that would turn the place into a terrorist base base worse than Afganistan before 9/11.

My best guess for a "fix" in Iraq, honestly, would be to transition control over to a U.N. peacekeeping force under non-U.S. control; preferably with a relatively large contingent of soldiers from Middle Eastern nations. They's likely be viewed as more of an honest broker than the U.S. is, even though many of our troops would have to sytay yunder a U.N. banner.

The UN and middle eastern soldiers? I really wouldn't trust the UN to run a bake sale.

(My real best guess for how to win the peace for the Iraqis is to slaughter everyone who might possibly pose a risk to stability there, and letting collateral damage be damned while doing so...that would set us up for a century of terrorist attacks on us, from the ranks of a hugely swelled and militant al Qaeda , but I bet we could end the insurgency in Iraq within a year.)

Now you're talking.
Bush gave a speech the other day that bears on this issue, here's some of what he said:

A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

 

[Exploradora]

We started this war. Don't we have an ethical duty to defend the Iraq government until it can defend itself?

Maybe. However, we have an ethical duty not to be involved in a Civil War either. And it could be said that our ethical duty was not to get involved in the first place.

Some people say there's no such thing as an "Iraqi Government" as things stand now. I feel that we have to take responsibility for our actions as they contributed to the current situation. I also feel we have an ethical responsibility to prevent as many deaths as possible and preserve as many freedoms as possible. Unfortunately the U.S. may be incapable of fixing, or even stabilising Iraq.

 

[Pandaemoni]

=Again, reasonable. But wouldn't our leaving the place in chaos leave a power vacuum that would turn the place into a terrorist base base worse than Afganistan before 9/11.

The Shia and Kurds, who are almost guaranteed to dominate the post-war landscape are opposed to al Qaeda,. The Shia are because al Qaeda is Sunni, and views them as heretics. The Kurds are Sunni (by and large), but have so far proven reliable and more amenable to western traditions than their arab neighbors. If terrorist training camps are set up, thjen we would need to strike at them (and we should let evceryone know that too when we leave), but al Qaeda just is not all that popular in Iraq, so I'm not sure that's very likely.

 

[zanket]

Unfortunately the U.S. may be incapable of fixing, or even stabilising Iraq.

Especially since they killed Saddam. He could've restored the relative peace & prosperity Iraqis had before the US ruined it. Now there will be a competition for a new strongman.

 

[zanket]

If terrorist training camps are set up, thjen we would need to strike at them (and we should let evceryone know that too when we leave), but al Qaeda just is not all that popular in Iraq, so I'm not sure that's very likely.

In Iraq, "al Qaeda" is just a label a group of Iraqis copied. Why start from scratch when you can have instant name recognition?

 

[S.A.M.]

In Iraq, "al Qaeda" is just a label a group of Iraqis copied. Why start from scratch when you can have instant name recognition?

Its not just the brand and the script, they even used actors.

Over the past year, Iraqis heard several audio recordings by a mysterious terrorist leader named Omar al-Baghdadi singing the praises of the organization al-Qaeda in Iraq and urging his followers to attack U.S. troops.

The whole thing was a sham, the U.S. military said Wednesday. Al-Baghdadi was actually a fictional character dreamed up by al-Qaeda in Iraq to bolster its local credibility because the group is largely run by non-Iraqis. The voice heard in the recordings belonged to an Iraqi actor, the military said.

Of course, even that has been whitewashed as an al-Qaeda link, with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The Shia and Kurds, who are almost guaranteed to dominate the post-war landscape are opposed to al Qaeda,. The Shia are because al Qaeda is Sunni, and views them as heretics. The Kurds are Sunni (by and large), but have so far proven reliable and more amenable to western traditions than their arab neighbors. If terrorist training camps are set up, thjen we would need to strike at them (and we should let evceryone know that too when we leave), but al Qaeda just is not all that popular in Iraq, so I'm not sure that's very likely.

You make some good arguments. What I think we're going to do is to slowly draw down our present large number of troops over a period of years. But we will probably have bases there indefinitely.

 

[Pandaemoni]

In Iraq, "al Qaeda" is just a label a group of Iraqis copied. Why start from scratch when you can have instant name recognition?

Actually while "al Qaeda in Iraq" is just a name (adopted by Zarqawi's JTJ, a group formerly concerned with the overthrow of the Jordanian government), I do think there has been evidence of some moinor connections of al Qaeda proper amongst the Sunni militants...though some evidence that the Sunnis in Iraq aren't thrilled with al Qaeda.

 

[spidergoat]

(My real best guess for how to win the peace for the Iraqis is to slaughter everyone who might possibly pose a risk to stability there, and letting collateral damage be damned while doing so...that would set us up for a century of terrorist attacks on us, from the ranks of a hugely swelled and militant al Qaeda , but I bet we could end the insurgency in Iraq within a year.) ”

Now you're talking.
Bush gave a speech the other day that bears on this issue, here's some of what he said:

“ A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Complete and utter insanity.

 

[leopold]

In fact we are arming both sides.

if you think about it this isn't a bad strategy.

you go into a situation that you want to gain control of and time really isn't a constraint. you have no idea who the "bad guys" are.
so you throw a bunch of guns and ammo at them and inflame tensions.
the "lambs", ones that don't want to fight, will take cover.
the predators will battle it out until only a few are left.
the US goes in and kills what few predators are left and calls the lambs from hiding.

it sounds good on paper at least.

 

[zanket]

Bush gave a speech the other day that bears on this issue, here's some of what he said:

Bush conveniently ignores the fact that the US was carpet bombing Cambodia. The US killed innocents in Cambodia at a greater rate than the Khmer Rouge did after the US left.

 

[alleybear]

The only ethical thing the US was required to do was to start a war based on truth (of which it failed miserablly). Starting a war based on lies negates any conversation about ethics since the war mongerer has objectively demonstrated it's not interested in ethics.

 

[alleybear]

P.S.

Examples such as sole source, no-bid contracts favoring Halleburton over all others, giving MCI exclusive Iraqi phone business after it had just been convicted of defrauding the US government. It's laughable to any rational person to put the words, "US government", "Iraqi" and "ethics" together in the same sentence.

 

[S.A.M.]

if you think about it this isn't a bad strategy.

you go into a situation that you want to gain control of and time really isn't a constraint. you have no idea who the "bad guys" are.
so you throw a bunch of guns and ammo at them and inflame tensions.
the "lambs", ones that don't want to fight, will take cover.
the predators will battle it out until only a few are left.
the US goes in and kills what few predators are left and calls the lambs from hiding.

it sounds good on paper at least.

Maybe they should try it at home first. If it works at home, it should be alright elsewhere.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Maybe they should try it at home first. If it works at home, it should be alright elsewhere.

We already do, SAM. Haven't you heard of the right to bear arms?