Thursday, September 15, 2005

Shouldn't U.S. Soldiers Stay in Iraq?

I've been against the Iraq war from the beginning. And I'm not at all happy with the lies told by the administration, or how they've changed their story repeatedly: first Iraq is supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda, then it's got Weapons of Mass Destruction, and once it was publicly clear that it was all baloney, they switched to the story that they had invaded Iraq to "liberate" it.

I may not understand Bush's war-mongering, or why so many Americans buy into his story, but I'm also puzzled by the other side that wants to recall all American troops. From where I sit, that looks like a very bad idea. The U.S. invasion put Iraq in such a bad state that the U.S. troops might be the only thing between daily suicide bombings and all-out civil war. How can the troops leave when Iraq is not ready to stand up on it own? How can they leave before cleaning up the mess they made? I know, it isn't the soldiers' fault that they created this situation; the blame belongs with Bush & pals, and perhaps those in congress who voted for it. But that doesn't change the fact that far more people might die if they leave than if they stay.

If someone can explain to me why Iraq wouldn't devolve further if the troops left, please leave a comment. Otherwise, the U.S.--and by implication, its soldiers--has a moral responsibility to finish what it started. To carry through on its promise to create a free and prosperous Iraq. To ensure that Iraq is better off with the help of America than with the tyrrany of Saddam Hussein.


Crypticity said...

It's a paradox caused by people's differing awareness of the situation.

The side focussed on bringing back the troops would say it is immoral to let more innocent American troops die in what was a foolish endeavour.

But I agree with you. The troops need to remain until Iraq is stabilised. Any troop deaths are now the 'blood sacrifice' for the previous wrong-doing of the US (the unnecessary invasion of Iraq).

To leave Iraq, it would truly show the rejection of the fact that the death toll in Iraq is a product of their earlier unwise transgression.

The paradox lies in the fact that America (due to their change in the reasons for war) continue to sacrifice despite not claiming to have done anything wrong.

The US Administration continue to say that the invasion was justified, so the further loss of American life is seen as unnecessary by the public. If the Administration admitted its mistake, and conceded that it needed to keep troops there to gain some redemption, it would be much more reasonable.

This is the paradox that leads many to see this as a senseless loss of life.

Anonymous said...

Check out this analysis from one of the smartest bloggers going: