The War
Obviously, this is the preeminent issue of the day. How one feels about the war seems to define one's political barometer. Or, could it be that one's political barometer defines their view on the war? And that, I believe, is the root of the problem. I wonder if anyone (right or left) actually steps back, looks objectively at the facts, and tries to come up with an unbiased view of the war. We all like to believe that this is how we come to our opinions, but I doubt any of us actually does.
So, given that my opinions on the war have been formed from a biased perspective, let me try to articulate them. As I see it, there are two high level reasons for the US to go to war: (1) to protect our own security; or (2) because it is the ethically "right" thing to do. Its funny how right wing conservatives tee up the need to go to war as satisfying the first reason, protection of our own security. Its funny because they tee up the issue as if they (or people like them) are the only ones who want to protect our security. Everyone else, it seems, could care less about our own security and would be content to have us be overthrown by terrorists or communists or even gays. Let's all get on the same page -- we want to be secure and we want to maintain our freedom as Americans. Let's make that a given and not argue about whether we are for the security of the United States. We need to protect ourselves and every action we take should be designed to ensure that freedom.
Now that we can get that piece of rhetoric out of the way, let's address whether The War in Iraq is actually helping to keep us safe and secure. It is possible, isn't it, that we took the action because a lot of people believed (and still believe) that it was (and is) the best way to keep America safe but that it is not actually keeping us safe? I admit that it is also possible that the result of the war will indeed keep us safe. But what is the best, most informed answer?
John McCain is a politician I respect very much and I believe he tries to develop his views objectively. He was on the Daily Show last night (Monday, July 24) and consistent with earlier positions was squarely behind the War in Iraq. McCain kept repeating the mantra (that clearly bears repeating) that we must prevail because if we fail, it will be very bad for us and for the world. This is a difficult position to argue with, but it fails to recognize the view that perhaps it is impossible to prevail. McCain admitted that many mistakes were made in the war, but urged us to remain steadfast, again, because the stakes are so high. The problem with this position is that it does not defend the view that having started the war (and now continuing the war) is the best course of action. Frankly, in my view, it does not even begin to address whether getting into the war was a good idea in the first place, nor whether it is now the best course of action to continue.
Why not? Why is it not a solid defense of our "stay the course" position to say that if we fail, things will be very bad (a position that I believe is undeniable)? Because, it does not address (1) whether this is a winable war; and (2) whether the US position will be even worse if we continue to fight. Both of these propositions are on the table and in my view, they need to be addressed side by side with the "badness" of a withdrawal.
Yet, we don't seem to see objective, dispassionate, fact-based discussions like this. We see the right wing pundits saying that the left wants to "cut and run" without understanding the terrible consequences on our national security. And we see the left wing pundits pleading to get out of Iraq without addressing the very real consequences that getting out will trigger. I would very much welcome a clean debate on the two sides of the issue. Anyone with any common sense at all should agree that withdrawing from Iraq has dire consequences (the terrorists will smell weakness in the great Superpower; Iraq will be a training ground for terrorism; etc). Similarly, everyone should agree that not withdrawing has similar dire consequences (more US soldiers will die; more Iraqi civilians will die; continued anti-US sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere; the possibility that it is an unwinnable conflict).
I would like to be shown the facts that support both inevitabilities and then the arguments that flow from these facts. The funny thing is that the stakes are so incredibly high in Iraq that we should all be united in our desire to get the right, most informed answer to this question - not the desperate desire to be "right" about our approach to the world.
So, given that my opinions on the war have been formed from a biased perspective, let me try to articulate them. As I see it, there are two high level reasons for the US to go to war: (1) to protect our own security; or (2) because it is the ethically "right" thing to do. Its funny how right wing conservatives tee up the need to go to war as satisfying the first reason, protection of our own security. Its funny because they tee up the issue as if they (or people like them) are the only ones who want to protect our security. Everyone else, it seems, could care less about our own security and would be content to have us be overthrown by terrorists or communists or even gays. Let's all get on the same page -- we want to be secure and we want to maintain our freedom as Americans. Let's make that a given and not argue about whether we are for the security of the United States. We need to protect ourselves and every action we take should be designed to ensure that freedom.
Now that we can get that piece of rhetoric out of the way, let's address whether The War in Iraq is actually helping to keep us safe and secure. It is possible, isn't it, that we took the action because a lot of people believed (and still believe) that it was (and is) the best way to keep America safe but that it is not actually keeping us safe? I admit that it is also possible that the result of the war will indeed keep us safe. But what is the best, most informed answer?
John McCain is a politician I respect very much and I believe he tries to develop his views objectively. He was on the Daily Show last night (Monday, July 24) and consistent with earlier positions was squarely behind the War in Iraq. McCain kept repeating the mantra (that clearly bears repeating) that we must prevail because if we fail, it will be very bad for us and for the world. This is a difficult position to argue with, but it fails to recognize the view that perhaps it is impossible to prevail. McCain admitted that many mistakes were made in the war, but urged us to remain steadfast, again, because the stakes are so high. The problem with this position is that it does not defend the view that having started the war (and now continuing the war) is the best course of action. Frankly, in my view, it does not even begin to address whether getting into the war was a good idea in the first place, nor whether it is now the best course of action to continue.
Why not? Why is it not a solid defense of our "stay the course" position to say that if we fail, things will be very bad (a position that I believe is undeniable)? Because, it does not address (1) whether this is a winable war; and (2) whether the US position will be even worse if we continue to fight. Both of these propositions are on the table and in my view, they need to be addressed side by side with the "badness" of a withdrawal.
Yet, we don't seem to see objective, dispassionate, fact-based discussions like this. We see the right wing pundits saying that the left wants to "cut and run" without understanding the terrible consequences on our national security. And we see the left wing pundits pleading to get out of Iraq without addressing the very real consequences that getting out will trigger. I would very much welcome a clean debate on the two sides of the issue. Anyone with any common sense at all should agree that withdrawing from Iraq has dire consequences (the terrorists will smell weakness in the great Superpower; Iraq will be a training ground for terrorism; etc). Similarly, everyone should agree that not withdrawing has similar dire consequences (more US soldiers will die; more Iraqi civilians will die; continued anti-US sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere; the possibility that it is an unwinnable conflict).
I would like to be shown the facts that support both inevitabilities and then the arguments that flow from these facts. The funny thing is that the stakes are so incredibly high in Iraq that we should all be united in our desire to get the right, most informed answer to this question - not the desperate desire to be "right" about our approach to the world.
posted by scientist at 6:28 PM
0 comments
