Ok.. Let's talk about this Iraq thing for just a second. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get mad about the conversation in one direction or the other, but I'll just deal with that.
Let's set aside the question of whether we should have started this whole thing or not, and talk about: Is it possible that this thing can end well? I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a way to "win" this thing. Win here meaning that everybody stops killing one another and moves on to living as, at least, psuedo-reasonable people. Again I don't want to here about why we shouldn't have started this... But I do want to hear your thoughts on how to end it.
Some options I think of: (not that any of them are possible or would work)
1. Everybody that's not supposed to be there just leave.
2. Everybody in the free/psuedo-reasonable world sends 100,000 troops in and the craziest marshall law since the Roman world is commenced.
3. Mind controling drugs in the water...
4. Other...
My thoughts on Life, Work, and the World I live in...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Josh
- I'm in love with my wife, enchanted by my children, and amazed by the world around me.
12 comments:
I don't believe this is a "winnable" situation. History has shown that for the most part, the peoples of Middle Eastern countries cannot just live and let live. Yes, there are exceptions, but even Saddam's government, which had the populus mostly under control, killed thousands of Kurdish Iraqis.
A peacekeeping force withdrawing from a region where the social(not governmental) leaders sow hate, distrust, and discord WILL result in a civil war. How long should we stay? I think we have no easy out, but we should be starting a true removal of force, because the only way to reach stability is for them to do it on their own. Yes many would die as a result of a civil/border war (I'll assume Iran gets involved), but we can't force them to be civil. Christ doesn't keep us from sin, but lets us choose not to.
Johnny D,
I think your comments raise at least one question in my mind:
Do governments have responsibilities for the greater good, when it comes to exacting justice on an international scale? (General thoughts that I’ve been having on justice may follow in another post if I’m not too lazy)
It seems to me that almost every time a government does something for the greater good, especially the USA (which I love the USA) there is always a least a little bit of a self interest spin. I say a spin because it's hard for me to believe that the US government is as outright nasty and self serving as many anti-war folks want to paint us. On the same hand, I have to ask the question; Why is this our responsibility? Ultimately it became our responsibility when some bad men killed a whole bunch of people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. In fact I was probably the loudest voice I know for (bomb'em back to the stone age.) That was my emotional response, but that affected my intellectual response at the time which had something to do with the idea that for the sake of humanity in general the people who did this have to be brought to justice.
With out the attacks in 01 I would have been a lot more suspicious of why we were going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. My question though is what rebel group is going to have to blow up Disneyworld for us to help out in Darfur or N. Korea? Which then asks the question are we responsible as a nation?
Is justice worth pursuing when you're not the directly offended party?
In Iraq I think that the question was answered yes.. Since I count Afghanistan as the direct military action that was necessary after 9/11/01. Iraq seems to be an extension of this "sense of responsibility" Even if its not going terribly well, at least from the reports on the major carriers of news.
Now to the self interest spin..I will compare Iraq and N. Korea just for consideration. (disclaimer, I'm just formulating my thoughts in real time as I type this)
So if we are choosing a place to exercise our global responsibility. Why Iraq?
Iraq has a whole lot of oil. North Korea doesn't. Iraq is strategically placed in the Middle East. N. Korea is scarily close to China, which no one nation in their right mind wants to tick off. Just for the sheer economic market potential alone. Not to mention that they have a zillion member army and some really top notch scientists, who I really doubt are working on the problem of malnutrition in rural China. North Korea has nukes, we think. Iraq does not have nukes. Lots of people dying under Kim Jong IL. Lots of people were dying under Sadaam Hussein. Iraq seems to be unwinnable partly because of the culture of the inhabitants.. N. Korea same? There is more I want to say , but alas this is quite long and I need to do some work, of they kind that I get paid for. I've got thought for you to Byron, and if I'm motivated I'll respond.
Funny that you just posted this. I was thinking about the same topic on the way home today. Sort of got momentarily overwhelmed with a wave of "let's just bring them all home and let what happens happen."
I mean.. no doubt, there are some really good things we're doing over there. I know that all the negative I hear isn't the whole picture. But I also know that all the positive doesn't paint it, either.
What got me today was, I know that there are a lot of people over there who cannot bring themselves to believe that we are there for any good reason.
I think if we can't win that battle of public opinion, there's no way we can "win" the overall battle. If we don't have "buy in".. we don't have the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.. (and we don't).. then there's no hope for a possible positive outcome. Plain and simple. No way we can win. We're screwed. And, really, I don't mean "win" in the military sense.
The way I'm feeling today is (reserving the right to feel differently tomorrow), sometimes you just gotta walk away. And I'm afraid that time has come. I hate it. Hate it. It won't be fair. People will die. There will be a war. We will look like bullies, idiots, losers, quiters.. but I think that's where we might be. : \
So cap and bfb:
Both of you used the word winnable. I think that cap, you kind of started to qualify what you meant a little, by saying I don't mean "win" in the military sense.
The question I'm considering is the responsibility to act to bring/ be the sword of justice. Maybe justice will be served by going in sweeping out as many cobwebs and killing as many spiders as possible and then getting out of dodge. I don't know. I guess I'm going to have to collect my justice thoughts because it keeps coming back to this.. That the strongest have the responsibility to bring justice if they themselves are just. I don't mean vengeance here. I mean care and protection for the innocent/oppressed. If justice were the motive then it wouldn't matter if a war were technically winnable, the concern would be that justice was being done, that order was being kept or attempted at being kept. At least that's what I'm thinking at the moment. I need to develop my justice and mercy thinking some more.
Hi. My name is Cori. I come and read your blog from time to time.
My biggest worry is that withdrawl from this war will be seen as a vicotry by the terrorist and they will come at us with more force then they already have. Look what happened when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip.
The real Truth is that God tells us that until Christ comes again there will NOT be peace in the middle east. If that is the US's goal is forget it. It ain't happening. (Side note: That is why all this peace talk between Israel and everyone one else in the middle east is so upsetting. And that our president (a supposed Christian) is spearheading a mission that has no hope of succeeding.)
My other thought is that this war might be more winnable if we had the support of the other nations. Instead they are all running scared. And what about (is it) NATO or the United Nations that should be helping out in this situation. What about the agreements signed after the 2nd world war that said they would not let one person kill countless millions. If you ask me, and you did, the entire eastern half of the world has missed the mark on this one.
Well, if you're going to collect your thoughts on justice, and your concern is with "care and protection for the innocent/oppressed", you had probably better decide whether blowing a bunch of people up is the best course of action to pursue in order to meet that goal.
: ]
Okay, so I'm just being a Smarty Smarterson.. but there's a valid point down there somewhere. It could be that justice is not best pursued with the sword. Or, at the very least, that the sword be weilded in a different manner.
And, for what it's worth, I thought it was a good idea at the time. (I should have a shirt that says that..)
I really hate saying it, but we at least no longer have much business over there. It's really up to the Iraqi people to decide what to do as a society, and if we stay, we've removed that right from them.
I think this comes down to one of the worst parts of being a leader: making a hard decision, going with it, and accepting the consequences. I'm not saying I want more violence or death, far from it, but I don't think we should hold ourselves responsible for their actions.
As to what other nations think, who cares? Most of them think the UN is a vital and useful organization.
Sometimes sending in the SWAT team is the only way to get the creep with the gun to stop killing people, but sometimes like in Georgia (the country not the state) the bad guys start a fire and kill everybody when you do that.
So on an individual level sometimes bad guys need shootin. I'm convinced of that, however, I'm trying to decide if thats the case on the bigger level.
I guess what I was trying to say in the previous comment is...
At first blush it does seem like blowing people up is not how you help the innocent and the oppressed.
However at least on a small scale like in the example of the SWAT team I mentioned previously, sometimes the oppressed and the innocent can't be help until the baddy who is causing the thing is taken out.
What I'm trying to decide is whether or not a prerequisite for "justice" is an authority of suitable strength to enforce it.
In the example of the gunman holed up threatening kids, I'm pretty sure that just walking in and saying; "I'm not here for you I just want to remove these innocent ones from danger and make sure their needs are being met." would cause him to cease harming or cease the threat of harm.
Injustice seems to require a tyrant. And typically tyrants need to be shot or bombed or whatever in order for them to let the kids out of the schoolhouse.
All that being said, I'm not sure I've arrived there I'm still just thinking out loud.
Right. I get what you're saying.
Does the SWAT example translate to the larger scale? Or is there a Theory of Relativity for Justice here? Because of the infinitely more complex situation that arises when you add in hundreds of thousands of people, and all kinds of political motivations and ramifications, etc... can you really apply the same principles on the macro level that you are applying on a smaller scale? Even if we have suitable strength to enforce the justice, the situation is a lot more complicated.
Of course, maybe "suitable strength" should be judged on the basis of necessary complexity. That is to say.. if we can exact justice with one clean swing of the blade, then we have "suitable strength".. but if we're hacking away like a blind golfer in the rough.. maybe we don't have it, after all.
Here's the thing, problems in Iraq stem from lots of history and not just Iraqi history. If a conserted effort is to be made at anything looking like a "positive outcome" it will have to come out of regional dialogue. And wether or not the US should be party to that is a whole new question because we're not exactly regional. If the US were to be invovled, I think it would probably be pivotal that we spent alot of time sitting down and shutting up. Iraq and our dealings with her has destabilized the region. Iran has been acting a little goofy for a long time but we still are going to need to talk to her. And the Syrians and everybody else. And even the Israeli's are going to need to put their best foot forward. Now what that all looks like I don't know but I think it means a lot of concessions and agreeing to disagree for the moment so that we can get one thing decided. Then we have to let the Iraqi's play it out. If everyone could agree to secure the borders and no one goes in or out, maybe they'd have a fair shot with getting the elements inside the country under control. Sigh...
Africa, now she's a whole new problem. I'm pretty sure there it would take sitting down with every person on the continent for a day long interview. Then you decide who's normal and could be helpful and who needs to be kicked off the continent. Mr. Mugabe goes first, then we'll get around to the rest.
I think that some of it really has to come down to the thing when we were kids. If someone doesn't play well with others, eventually nobody will play with them. I think we need to withdraw to see if they CAN play nice, and then, maybe we can be friends with them.
Post a Comment