The soldiers did not start the "fires" or "crimes" either, they are there to fix whatever is the problem through the use of force. Also, the soldiers do not have to be there, insofar as they did not have to join the military. Once joined, yes, they are constrained to fulfill certain terms of their contract, but then, that is the purpose of contracts, to ensure that each side fulfills its obligations.
We did not "start" Iraq. Saddam Hussein proved to be a brutal dictator with genocidal tendencies and designs on the Arabian peninsula, in pursuit of regional hegemony. He also was hostile to the United States, and tied in shadowy ways to various terror networks. We simply solved a problem.
Of course, there are situations in which, in some sense, the end justifies the means. That is the whole premise of war, that however deplorable it is, some things are worse.
I am startled by this hostility to democracy that you show. It would seem evidently desirable to have the rule of law, the competition of elections, and the guarantee of civil liberties, if one cares at all for the dignity of the Iraqi people. How is that a "facade of legitimacy"? In a perfect world, it would be the sine qua non of legitimacy. |
