But my God, doesn't this war rise above partisan politics? I can repeat the costs in countless lives destroyed, but you know that. Don't you think that something as personally significant as this war should be looked at in the cold light of logic, good vs. bad. Result vs. cost?
Dude, the "war" is over. The current situation in Iraq is not a war, its an effort to give the current Iraqi government the ability to resist and destroy attacks by fanatic killers.
You can think whatever you want about the pre-invasion decision (when the "war" occurred"), but the current effort to provide security to Iraq is a humanitarian effort. The coalition is sacrificing to help regular Iraqis, as far as I can tell. The current "problem causers" are the people kidnapping children and blowing themselves up in the name of God knows what. The self serving thing to do now would be to just leave, and let the remaining Iraqis descend into chaos and civil war. Is that your suggestion, or what?
But I agree, it should have nothing to do with partisan politics. I think GB is a fool, and I generally vote Democrat mainly on the issues of abortion and gun control (I think it should be the women's decision, and I think you don't need a gun). But if you consider obligation are to do what is best for the world (as I do) and no to do what is supposedly best for the US (Ted's apparent view) then it is your obligation to help an oppressed enslaved people get free of their enslaver. Although that is not the reason GB led the US to war (something about WMDs), it's the reason I think it was and is a just and moral effort.
Look at the Korean War. As a result of the war (and nothing else) South Koreans are not in North Korea. Although the Korean War killed XX people, the lives saves just in terms of superior South Korean health care as a result of the war make that war morally worthwhile, to say nothing of the superior quality of life in South Korea. There aren't thousands of South Koreans rushing embassies to try to get out of South Korea, if you know what I mean.
What you leave out in your objection to the current situation in Iraq is an implied preference for the situation under Saddam, and the perpetuation of that Saddamish situation in Iraq for 50 (or more) more years.
It would have been interesting if there could have been an accurate poll of the Sunnis and Kurds three years before the invasion which basically said - do you want a foreign power to forcibly remove Saddam's regime or not? Methinks they would have said yes, but who knows? |
