Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Confero's Questions

If we assume that The Invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Confero has two questions:

"ONE- Are we morally obligated to help the Iraqis establish a government since WE removed Saddam Hussein?"

Yes, however I think this is the wrong question for a couple reasons and a few comments are called for:
1) We may not be trying to establish a government. For reasons stated previously in this discussion, it appears that we have purposefully tried to ensure that Iraq remains unstable. Further, certain policy makers have indicated our aim should be instability.
2) Iraq is not prepared for our kind of government. See Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France for discussion of the preparation required for a people to govern themselves. See Plato, The Republic for discussion of how tyranny follows from collapsed democracy.
3) No country in the region nor any power within Iraq will allow any government Americans sets up to continue once we leave.
4) No independent government is being set up in Iraq, the only “government” we are setting up is one we control directly.

"TWO- If it is morally permissible to leave, how do we do this without:
A) Letting Iran set up a puppet government, such as Lebannon?
B) Guarantee that other Middle East countries will not be destabilized, since Al-Queda will view this as a victory?
C) How do you contain the Al-Queda threat, since they are growing in numbers?"

Generally: There is a 99.9% chance that there will be a bloodbath when we leave, which is part of why I am livid with the Bush Administration. When you topple a government, you create a power vacuum. We did not only this, but also disbanded their army (criminal for reasons discussed previously in this discussion). But staying does not help either: it increases recruitment for Al Queda and there iff never be peace in Iraq as long as we are there. The question could also be posed, can we stay there morally?

A: defend the border between Iraq and Iran and/or supply and back Iraq (the latter is what we did in the past). Meanwhile divide Iraq in half between Sunni and Shia. Guard the border between them for a time. Then leave and hope for the best.

B: As I mentioned above it appears we want instability over there. Second, our presence is the source of instability. Third, Our presence is a victory for Al Queda; it’s exactly what they want. They and the Neocons want a fight.

C: basically the same comments as B. We are their best recruiters. The best way to prevent the growth of Al Queda? Follow our founders’ advice and stay out of foreign wars.

1 comment:

confero said...

Your arguments regarding the moral question are on shaky ground. What proof do you have that we want instability other than one person's opinion? Many opinions are brought forth in terms of how to handle the Middle East situation. If you can provide more concrete evidence then I will be inclined to believe your point.

Number 3 has no evidence. Where is this evidence since it is a major claim. I will agree that Syria and Iran do not want us there, but no sources for the Saudi, Jordan, or Lebannon governments.

Point number 2 is a good point but does not answer the question about leaving.

Again, I ask you how can we morally leave? We have an obligation to see to it that Iraqis do not slaughter each other.