Would it be worse?
One of the arguments that congressmen give for supporting the war, despite the fact that the reasons given for going to war were false, is that things would be worse if we left.
This argument is not as silly as the argument that if you do not support the war then you do not support the troops, and of course we have to support the troops. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of troops in Iraq who will tell you that they would consider a plane ticket home to be a fine form of support. It is a little harder to determine what would happen if we left, without us actually leaving. But the argument does not appear to be any more persuasive on the surface than the argument that things will be worse if we stay.
I presume that the main way in which war supporters believe things will be worse if we leave is that Iraqis will fight other Iraqis even more than they are fighting now.
The first flaw in this argument is that it presumes that no organization would step up to prevent violence between Iraqi factions. While arranging such an action would be quite difficult, it is possible, and it should be an important part of U.S. diplomatic efforts concerning Iraq.
The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes that U.S. efforts to prevent violence between Iraqis are effective. There is substantial evidence that reductions of violence in one area of Iraq are accompanied by increases in other areas of Iraq.
The third flaw is that it assumes that U.S. intends to prevent or reduce violence between Iraqis. The U.S. is currently supporting Sunni militias who promise to fight Al-Qaeda. We are also supporting the Iraq govenment, run by Shiites, even though we are rattling sabers against their Iranian allies. But, we are fighting the Shiite Sadrists, who are not allied with Iran. And we are supporting the Kurds. Thus we are supporting most of the separate factions that one would expect to be the major actors in a civil war, but we are not doing anything to bring them together.
The fourth flaw is that it ignores that things are pretty damn bad as they are. Millions of Iraqis have left the country, millions more are displaced within Iraq, and living conditions in most of the country are very bad. Granted, one can imagine worse things happening. But these events are pretty strong evidence that what we are doing is not working. If the reason for staying is concern for conditions in Iraq, some alternative policy to the status quo ought to be under consideration. The situation is bad enough that a claim that things would be worse if we left ought to be supported by some substantial evidence.
The fifth flaw is that nearly 80% of Iraqis do not want us there. Our presence stirs up resistence, and organization of militias, armies, and factions. Some of these groups will lay down their weapons when we leave, some will not, but this shows that to say we have to stay because there will be chaos if we leave is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Finally, although the greatest moral obligation is to Iraqis, considering our role in creating the misery in Iraq today, American policymakers ought to consider the effect of the war on the U.S. It is hard to see any positives in that regard, whether it is the cost of the war in dollars, the reduction in the ability of the armed forces to defend the country, the reduced economic strength of the country, the utter trashing of any respect we might have had in the international community, the loss of life and health for thousands of Americans, the trashing of civil liberties, etc.
Would it be worse, or not? Let's find out.
This argument is not as silly as the argument that if you do not support the war then you do not support the troops, and of course we have to support the troops. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of troops in Iraq who will tell you that they would consider a plane ticket home to be a fine form of support. It is a little harder to determine what would happen if we left, without us actually leaving. But the argument does not appear to be any more persuasive on the surface than the argument that things will be worse if we stay.
I presume that the main way in which war supporters believe things will be worse if we leave is that Iraqis will fight other Iraqis even more than they are fighting now.
The first flaw in this argument is that it presumes that no organization would step up to prevent violence between Iraqi factions. While arranging such an action would be quite difficult, it is possible, and it should be an important part of U.S. diplomatic efforts concerning Iraq.
The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes that U.S. efforts to prevent violence between Iraqis are effective. There is substantial evidence that reductions of violence in one area of Iraq are accompanied by increases in other areas of Iraq.
The third flaw is that it assumes that U.S. intends to prevent or reduce violence between Iraqis. The U.S. is currently supporting Sunni militias who promise to fight Al-Qaeda. We are also supporting the Iraq govenment, run by Shiites, even though we are rattling sabers against their Iranian allies. But, we are fighting the Shiite Sadrists, who are not allied with Iran. And we are supporting the Kurds. Thus we are supporting most of the separate factions that one would expect to be the major actors in a civil war, but we are not doing anything to bring them together.
The fourth flaw is that it ignores that things are pretty damn bad as they are. Millions of Iraqis have left the country, millions more are displaced within Iraq, and living conditions in most of the country are very bad. Granted, one can imagine worse things happening. But these events are pretty strong evidence that what we are doing is not working. If the reason for staying is concern for conditions in Iraq, some alternative policy to the status quo ought to be under consideration. The situation is bad enough that a claim that things would be worse if we left ought to be supported by some substantial evidence.
The fifth flaw is that nearly 80% of Iraqis do not want us there. Our presence stirs up resistence, and organization of militias, armies, and factions. Some of these groups will lay down their weapons when we leave, some will not, but this shows that to say we have to stay because there will be chaos if we leave is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Finally, although the greatest moral obligation is to Iraqis, considering our role in creating the misery in Iraq today, American policymakers ought to consider the effect of the war on the U.S. It is hard to see any positives in that regard, whether it is the cost of the war in dollars, the reduction in the ability of the armed forces to defend the country, the reduced economic strength of the country, the utter trashing of any respect we might have had in the international community, the loss of life and health for thousands of Americans, the trashing of civil liberties, etc.
Would it be worse, or not? Let's find out.
posted by Tommy Times at 5:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home