Surge Succeeds

I think throwing around words like "moral" doesn't help the situation in Iraq which is now a basket case.

Situations for all Iraqis have gotten worse during the past five years. What makes you think it'll improve by staying?

I'll tell you right off that we can't win any war in Iraq with 160,000 troops, especially ours who have been over-extended and used like fodder by this admnistration. Did you know that Bush cut veteran's benefits and services? Vet's now have a co-pay for services and drugs?

We destroyed their infrastructure and we owe it to them to rebuild it.

Our idiot president went to war on a lie and we as a country bought into it. We owe it to the people of Iraq to rebuild as much of their country as possible. We as a country are as responsible as Bush for the war. Running out of Iraq is a cowards way. I hate the war and the death of our solders but we Ok'd Bushes war and should have to live with it until we rebuild Iraq.

Waving a banner GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!! without a study of, acknowledgment of, and planning for the possible consequences is just as irresponsible as invading Iraq in the first place with inadequate planning and manpower levels insufficient to the task...

My only concern is what happens if we pullout before there is a stable government in Iraq. I strongly believe that a knee jerk pullout before there is a stable Iraqi government without considering the possible consequences of such an action would be a dereliction of duty by the administration and/or Congress. My primary concern is not with the wellbeing of the Iraqi citizenry, but with what it would mean to the the world in general and our own country in particular if a wider war that engulfed the entire Middle East resulted from such an action.

... I subscribe to the idea that we have a responsibility to put the country on a good footing if at all possible.

I'm not sure you are taking a coherent moral position here. It's not just the shift from "only" to "primary" but also it isn't clear what you might mean by "duty" or even "responsibility". To whom do you, or to whom does America, owe a duty or responsibility? And if that sphere of responsibility is limited, how is that justified? Could you go and cause a ruckus in a neighbors house and then feel your moral obligations would be fulfilled so long as your own house is not negatively effected? Is the extent of your responsibility or duty or moral obligation circumscribed merely by how your house is doing?

The 'realist' or 'pragmatic' position, such as fellows like Scowcroft or Baker advance, has the advantage of a reduced complexity - we look after our own interests. All other interests are morally irrelevant or subsidiary. And proponents of this philosophical/strategic position presently point to the neoconservative project in the middle east as a prime example of, let's call it, "good intention over-reach"...romantic, deluded, utopian and likely to bring about disaster. Perhaps your position is not unlike this realist position.

But their is much evidence to suggest that the neoconservative crowd were headed towards goals considerably less altrustic than their PR camapaign put forward. The fundamental document is The Project For A New American Century, wherein the goals of American political and military dominance of the middle east AND the world are laid out explicitly. An agenda and mindset which I see as being not idealistic at all. Rather it seems the realist position at pathological dosage.

I do agree with the first paragraph of yours I've noted above. The US is in a jam (and has gotten parts of the rest of the world in a jam too) and whatever the mistakes and misjudgements and downright immoral/amoral acts and motives involved, that's where we are now.

But I sure as hell wouldn't agree that the duty or responsibility now facing the US is limited to or defined by US interests. You'll recall the rhetorical question asked by many Americans after 9/11, "Why do they hate us?". If the US now procedes from a stance that their own interests define what is moral, I fear there will be a lot more Americans asking that question again.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber drove a car bomb into an Iraqi police station on Thursday, killing 13 people, while politicians prepared for a summit to restore a coalition government after the main Sunni group quit.

The attack followed a day of major bombings in Baghdad, in which 70 people were killed.

A police source said the bomber struck recruits lined up to join the police force in the town of Hibhib, north of Baghdad. The dead included six policemen and seven civilians. Fifteen people were wounded.

blatham wrote:

I'm not sure you are taking a coherent moral position here. It's not just the shift from "only" to "primary" but also it isn't clear what you might mean by "duty" or even "responsibility". To whom do you, or to whom does America, owe a duty or responsibility? And if that sphere of responsibility is limited, how is that justified? Could you go and cause a ruckus in a neighbors house and then feel your moral obligations would be fulfilled so long as your own house is not negatively effected? Is the extent of your responsibility or duty or moral obligation circumscribed merely by how your house is doing?

I am not a philosopher so my understanding of morality and the obligations under any system of moral beliefs probably will not stand a close examination from a philosophical point of view. A moral obligation is normally defined by a society or group. What one society or group considers moral another may consider immoral. Also a nation may have conflicting moral standards. For example, as a nation that generally ascribes to the ideas of Christian morality, we abhor the taking of human life yet we frequently take the lives those who have been convicted of murder.

That said I believe you have a valid point that I have not been consistent in regards to morality when I say in one post that we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke and in another I show an apparent disregard for the lives and wellbeing of the Iraqis in a post occupation Iraq. It is certainly immoral to and perhaps even mendacious to have no concern about the Iraqi citizenry if we end our presence in Iraq prematurely. I knew when I wrote the second post that I was not being consistent, and I deliberately ignored or ducked the issue of the morality of pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to their own devices as an expedient to stress that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could make the world a much more dangerous place. I stressed the possible impact on the United States primarily because the get-out-now crowd cannot seem to understand any discussion of broader concerns.

Quote:

The 'realist' or 'pragmatic' position, such as fellows like Scowcroft or Baker advance, has the advantage of a reduced complexity - we look after our own interests. All other interests are morally irrelevant or subsidiary. And proponents of this philosophical/strategic position presently point to the neoconservative project in the middle east as a prime example of, let's call it, "good intention over-reach"...romantic, deluded, utopian and likely to bring about disaster. Perhaps your position is not unlike this realist position.

Yes, I would say that you could put me in the Scowcroft-Baker camp under your description of how they view the misadventure into Iraq.

Quote:

But their is much evidence to suggest that the neoconservative crowd were headed towards goals considerably less altrustic than their PR camapaign put forward. The fundamental document is The Project For A New American Century, wherein the goals of American political and military dominance of the middle east AND the world are laid out explicitly. An agenda and mindset which I see as being not idealistic at all. Rather it seems the realist position at pathological dosage.

I'm not sure I would agree with the last sentence. I believe that it would be difficult if not impossible classify the raison d'être behind the invasion of Iraq as anything resembling any rational concept of reality.

Quote:

I do agree with the first paragraph of yours I've noted above. The US is in a jam (and has gotten parts of the rest of the world in a jam too) and whatever the mistakes and misjudgements and downright immoral/amoral acts and motives involved, that's where we are now.

But I sure as hell wouldn't agree that the duty or responsibility now facing the US is limited to or defined by US interests. You'll recall the rhetorical question asked by many Americans after 9/11, "Why do they hate us?". If the US now procedes from a stance that their own interests define what is moral, I fear there will be a lot more Americans asking that question again.

I don't believe I excluded concern for the Iraqis in a post occupation Iraq or intimated that a moral argument could not be made that we should not pull out because of what would happen to the Iraqis. Likewise I did not exclude consideration of the rest of the world in regards to our past and possible future actions concerning Iraq.

I consciously narrowed the focus of my remarks to the apparent basis of the the get-out-now argument that if we just get out everything will be fine simply has no basis in reality.

Let me state unequivocally that I believe that simply pulling out with no regard for the wellbeing of the Iraqis would be immoral.

I believe that it would be difficult if not impossible classify the raison d'être behind the invasion of Iraq as anything resembling any rational concept of reality.

The fact the surge is working got Pelosi so upset she had to fly back to Frisco to get a face lift.

Our staying is helping exactly how? All these predictions of how much worse it would be for Iraqis if we leave are being put out by the very same people who told us they "knew" where the WMD was in Iraq; so why should we put any stock in anything they say now?

The fact of the matter is we can't sustain this effort of the surge we are currently operating or we will leave ourselves in a weak position in other areas.

So when we drop the surge levels; the ones who have been standing down now will only pick it back up again.

Neither the Saddam loyalist (suni), nor the Shia nor the Kurds will want to compromise any of their own particular objectives for the sake of a unified Iraq and any protest to the contrary would be just lip service while their actions say otherwise. This is a situation we as the US can't win, the Iraq factions have to do it and they will not.