Iraq: Why are we really there?

[bobstod]

I have been struggling with a moral conflict with regard to the Iraq situation.

Our reasons for being there, as enunciated by the Bush Administration, have changed as often as the wind direction. We had to keep a "smoking gun" from becoming a "mushroom cloud". We had to remove an evil dictator. Iraq was the front line on the "war on terror". We are spreading democracy and freedom to the world (as God directed us). We are building the Iraqi military and police forces so they can provide their own security.

We won't leave until we have "complete victory", whatever that means.

Not once has any leader of the Bush White House mentioned the real reason we are there.

Iraq has about a fifth of the world's oil.

All the other reasons, whether valid or not, shrink to insignificance in comparison to that fact.

If you are skeptical of that statement, ask yourself this: how many other countries support terrorism? How many have brutal dictators? How many are dangerously (and REALLY) building a nuclear arsenal?

No, we are in Iraq because they have a LOT of oil, and our economy depends on a secure (and hopefully cheap) supply of oil.

And therein lies my moral dilemma.

I realize that if we don't "win" in Iraq, if we "cut and run", we will abandon our plans for permanent military bases in that country, the better to protect that vital oil, and to ensure that WE are it's buyers, and not our adversaries (like Japan or China or North Korea, or the European Union).

It is, in other words, "in our national interest" to be in Iraq, and to build those permanent military bases (about which we hear virtually nothing in the media or via the administration).

Take that logic down to the personal level, and here is what you get (correct me if I'm wrong): I am stronger and better equipped than my neighbor, and I need the water that flows across his property to irrigate my fields and give my livestock a place to drink. It is in the interests of my family to make sure that water gets to my farm. So I'm going to go on to his property and divert the stream on to my property, and I'll post hired guards to see that it stays that way.

Take it down to an even simpler argument: I want it, therefore I will take it.

Now I don't count myself a practicing Christian, but that idea rankles with the moral principles that I try to live by. Yet I know that, denied a secure source of oil, the United States will be hostage to those who possess it. Our economy could be destroyed in six months, leading to virtual collapse, if any other nation holds that kind of power over us.

What would Jesus do? Or what would Churchhill do? I know the answer in those two cases, but I don't know which one is right for me.

I do know that I would be happier if we had an open national debate on these questions by leaders I respect. I would be happier if the great majority of those closest to power in Washington did not have a personal, financial interest in the petroleum industry. I would be happier if my leaders trusted me with the truth, instead of all this window dressing.

 

[JH-ATL]

Oh, little things like removing mass murderors in two countries are of no matter. Also freeing 50,000 people is of no importance.

Because demos have to ***** and do nothing else but *****.

Once stuck in it, they never come out and only crying,wailing, etc, only matter.

Bobstod.....still at it.

 

[Queasy1]

Iraq: Why are we really there?

To get to the other side.

 

[NatchezTider]

bobstod: the US will do whatever is necessary (and to whom) in order to protect our interest (no matter where). it's been the driving force in foreign policy for over 200 years.

 

[bobstod]

Well, glad to see a couple of well-thought-out responses already!

It's easy to see, so far, who is prepared to look honestly at issues, and who still fall back on name calling and evasion.

I hope I can elicit some REAL responses, because this is an issue that is vital to our country, and it deserves honest and open debate.

 

[bobstod]

Yes, Natchez, I fully agree with you. My post responding to the first two replies on this thread was made while you were posting yours, so I had not seen it yet.

Any student of history knows that the US has always acted in what it considered its best interests. The light of later reflection sometimes reveals errors in determining what, exactly, those interests were; but I would not accuse this president or any other I can recall of acting against our national interests intentionally.

What about the central premise, though? Do you agree that we are there because of oil?

Is there a better way to get what we want?

 

[NYBamaFan]

the US will do whatever is necessary (and to whom) in order to protect our interest (no matter where). it's been the driving force in foreign policy for over 200 years.

Correct, and we will continue to do so. In fact, every major power does this to the degree possible. If you think it is shameful, you should consider where we might be if we never "meddled" in other countries' affairs.

The world is a far better place for our "meddling", and if it is not, America certainly is...

 

[Bamaro]

I think the assasination plot on daddy had a part in it too.

 

[BamaJeff]

I think the assasination plot on daddy had a part in it too.

Well let's see now. I recall Bubba Clinton (soon after that assaination attempt) stating that such an attack on a former U.S. President "is an attack on America."

So in that case, I guess this is a ligit reason to take down Sadaam because he was plotting an attack on America. :wink:

 

[bobstod]

NYBF:
... we will continue to do so. In fact, every major power does this to the degree possible. If you think it is shameful, you should consider where we might be if we never "meddled" in other countries' affairs.

The world is a far better place for our "meddling", and if it is not, America certainly is...

NYBF, I am considering it. That's what this post is about. I didn't say it was shameful, although I'm not sure it is not, from a moral point of view. I am struggling to reconcile the moral issues, which I have laid out as plainly as possible. I don't feel we, as a nation, are getting any help with these moral questions. IMHO, it is the duty of responsible government to bring these issues to national debate, to be honest with citizens about the real reasons their sons and daughters are asked to give their lives in a foreign war.

I'm also interested to hear opinions about whether there might be a better way to go about protecting our national interests. I have some opinions about that, but I'm withholding them until I see if anyone is interested in discussing the issue.

Don't you, NYBF, or you, Natchez, or you, Bamaro, agree that there is a disparity between the 'Christian' way to act, and the "National interests" model? Are you able to simply shrug off this question, as if it doesn't apply to nations, only individuals?

Do you not see a disconnect between a president who styles himself as a Christian leader, a man of 'values', who dresses up his invasion of another country with a multitude of transparent reasons, but leaves unsaid the underriding cause? Or is not not about oil, and national interest at all? Am I wrong about that?

I don't know whether it is right for us, as a nation, to invade Iraq in order to protect our national interests by securing that vast oil supply for our own use. It may well be that such an action is the right thing to have done, considering the alternatives. But it troubles my mind that I can't bring such an action to square with what I believe is ethical and moral on a personal level.

Will you, or will any of our intelligent and well-informed posters, address the moral question? Will you join in a debate about how best to secure our national interests, starting now (since we are already there in Iraq)? Is it practical to pursue the amorphous Bush "complete victory"? Can we do so with the Defense Department in charge? Or should we make a better plan? Maybe just tell everybody what the present plan really is?

Such a debate, in a nation of informed voters who, in theory, ARE the government (a government of the people, by the people, and for the people) seems essential to me. We need to decide, as a nation, whether this ambitious and expensive effort in a foreign nation, which is a drag on the national treasure and a distraction from important domestic concerns, is worthwhile, and if it is being pursued intelligently and realistically.

In spite of the entrenched right wing's criticisms of this thread, I consider this question to be vital to our national character. I honestly don't know where the right answer lies; but I believe that we owe it to ourselves as Americans to address the issue squarely and honestly.

 

[92tide]

Don't you, NYBF, or you, Natchez, or you, Bamaro, agree that there is a disparity between the 'Christian' way to act, and the "National interests" model? Are you able to simply shrug off this question, as if it doesn't apply to nations, only individuals?

I'm glad you brought up this whole topic. Unfortunately, discourse at this level no longer occurs on any large scale in our nation. Too many people are worried about being "right" (i.e. winning the argument) rather than exploring the underlying issues of anything, IMO. This translates to religion, politics, sports, cooking, hobbies, etc.

About the quote above, I for one do not think that we are a "Christian" nation or that we should base our national decisions on the "Christian" way to act. I think we are primarily (not a historian, but i'm guessing it was set up by the founding fathers this way) a pragmatic or rational nation. As NYBF alluded to, we will act in our national interests and I think we should continue in that vein, from the stand point of a guide to our nation's direction.

That leads to the question of what are our national interests and what is the pragmatic way to approach those interests. That is a massive question.

I do not agree with the Iraq war on many levels. But, I do not imply that the nation should necessarily take my view point, but that the view point should be discussed without being demonized.

Pragmatism also has a temporal function as well. Do we do what is best for our short-term interests (whatever those aer) or do we do what is best for our long term interest, if those two happen to be different.

It seems that there is a trend to eliminate in-depth discourse from our society, debates are no longer excercises in logic, they are shouting matches and contests to see who can reframe the other's position to make them look bad (name calling, strawmen, etc.).

Sorry if this is a bit rambly, but its tougher for me to type this type of thing than to say it.

I don't know how much success you will have with this line of discussion, but good luck.

 

[JH-ATL]

50,000 people freed.

Mass murderors eliminated.

Oil is not a dirty word.

Profit is not a dirty word.

Concepts that can not be grasped by demos.

 

[92tide]

50,000 people freed.

Mass murderors eliminated.

Oil is not a dirty word.

Profit is not a dirty word.

Concepts that can not be grasped by demos.

Part of Bob's point, (correct me if neccessary bob) is that these reasons/justifications you list were never discussed on any level when the war was being proposed.

In my opinion, ends-means justification is rarely a good moral foundation.

 

[Queasy1]

Part of Bob's point, (correct me if neccessary bob) is that these reasons/justifications you list were never discussed on any level when the war was being proposed.

In my opinion, ends-means justification is rarely a good moral foundation.

Actually they were. If you go back and read some of Bush's speeches, he mentioned things other than WMDs as reason to remove Saddam.

 

[jthomas666]

Will you, or will any of our intelligent and well-informed posters, address the moral question? Will you join in a debate about how best to secure our national interests, starting now (since we are already there in Iraq)? Is it practical to pursue the amorphous Bush "complete victory"? Can we do so with the Defense Department in charge? Or should we make a better plan? Maybe just tell everybody what the present plan really is?

That's what I like about you, bobstod--you always just lob the easy questions.

I've been wrestling with these ideas a lot since arriving on this board, and my thoughts have been influenced by a lot of the posters here.

The Iraq situation is so muddled...I know that the idea of a withdrawal is gaining traction, but I'm not sure that's in our best interests. Once we invaded, we committed ourselves to rebuild the country, and to install a government that, while perhaps not following a strict democratic or federal model, at least represents a stable movement away from dictatorship.

To do anything else would not be in our national interests for a number of reasons:

1. It would demonstrate a lack of responsibility on our part (the "you break it, you bought it" model.

2. An unstable or unfriendly government in Iraq is a guaranteed method of getting something unpleasant shoved right up our collective butts. Or to put it another way, with friends like Iran, who needs enemas?

3. It would be seen as a failure of US diplomacy and/or military. In world-level diplomacy, as in business, our ability to gain support for anything depends less on questions of right/wrong, but rather our perceived ability to deliver on our promises. If you think we have a bad rep in the world now, what happens if we turn to Iraq, head for the door, and say "thankyouverymuchyou'reonyourowngoodnight!" What would then happen the next time he have to deal with Iraq, or North Korea, or try to get India and Pakistan to chill the hell out?

So, what do we do? I actually agree that we should not make a big deal about deadlines and target dates, save in the broadest of term. What we do need to do is, once the new government on its feet (not the transitional government, but the new government to be elected in 2006), sit down with it and say, "OK, we're behind you, you will have our full support, but now it's time for Iraqis to step up for Iraq. How can we help you make that happen?" I know these things have been discussed before, but to do so before the new government is on a solid footing is putting the cart just a wee bit before the horse.

Can we at least start to withdraw now? I honestly don't know. I would like to think that we could at least bring home 5-10% of the troops home, if for no other reason than to give the soldiers a break. But even a token reduction in force could also go a long way towards reassuring people in the Middle East that we do not intend for the occupation to be permanent--which is what many of them fear and which is what Al Qaeda preaches.

Sorry, but right now that's all I've got.

 

[bobstod]

Gentlemen, forgive me for being so insistent, but this thread is not about why we went to war in Iraq. All the discussions about whether we were misled or lied to have been done over and over.

I am saying that we are in Iraq because they have a fifth of the world's oil. All the other reasons are window dressing.

Now if you want to disagree about that, okay. Tell me why we are there, and tell me why it's not about oil. That is the central assumption of this thread, and it should be open to question.

But if you agree with me that it is about oil, and about protecting our access to that oil because it is vitally important to us as a nation, then I'm interested in how you percieve the morality of our position. It is okay to invade another country, establish US military bases there, and essentially build a nation willing to put the USA in a favored status with regard to the supply of oil?

How does that square up with the idea that might does not make right? What about the example of the man who diverted his neighbor's stream onto this own property, because he was strong enough to do it and make it stick?

What about the notion that (if you agree that the Iraq war is about oil), we have had no frank discussion of that fact by national leaders of either party? Don't we, as citizens, have a right to hear such debate from those who are presently making the decisions, or from those who wish to be elected and make them in the future?

If it is a given that we need a secure supply of oil for the next fifteen or twenty years, while we develop other sources of energy, are we going about securing that supply in the best way? Are there other ways, or is Iraq do or die?

 

[92tide]

But if you agree with me that it is about oil, and about protecting our access to that oil because it is vitally important to us as a nation, then I'm interested in how you percieve the morality of our position. It is okay to invade another country, establish US military bases there, and essentially build a nation willing to put the USA in a favored status with regard to the supply of oil?

I do not think it is moral to be in a war for oil. I do think that is a large part of the reason we are there.

What is the total cost of the war now? Some $300-400 billion? Imagine if that would have been invested in new technologies to move us away from oil/combustion technology. We could essentially start a new industrial revolution and ensure our nation's leadership in that new economy, much like we are now. That to me would be more in our long term national interests than invading and occupying a country.

Actually they were. If you go back and read some of Bush's speeches, he mentioned things other than WMDs as reason to remove Saddam.

Yes, but those reasons were tertiary at best. Sec. Rice/Fmr. Sec. Powell/VP Cheney were talking about mushroom clouds, vials of chemical agents, nuclear equipped drones, and aluminum tubes ad nauseum.

 

[bobstod]

92tide, although I agree with you that we would be far better off had we spent our money and efforts on developing alternative energies, the fact remains that we are there now, and we are there because of oil.

Realistically, the transition to a new power source (hydrogen? Solar? nuclear?) will take more than ten or fifteen years. Even more realistically, it won't happen until the energy companies want it to happen; and that won't be until they are positioned to control it and profit from it.

So we are stuck with the unpleasant fact that our economic health and therefore our survival depend for a decade or more on fossil fuel.

We either have to secure it by force and invasion, or by some other means. We have made a start on the first option. Is that a moral choice? Will it work? Is there another way? A better way?

 

[92tide]

Understood, I was just backing up a bit for the moral implications of defining our "national interest" and thinking that hypothetically, if the amount of money spent on the war and other associated functions of "securing" oil were spent on "securing" a future US economy independent of oil, it may speed up the process of transitioning into a new technology. Just playing what-if.

Frankly, I don't know how to deal with the moral implications of the situation we now have ourselves in. Part of me thinks that if we leave that the place will erupt into a civil war, but part of me thinks that alot of the nasty stuff going on there now is a direct response to our being there and if we leave they will figure out a way to deal.

If we did pull out, and Iraq did not fall completely apart, I do not think that it would necessarily harm our long term oil supply. I think the sheer size of the US market would make it hard for those who would end up in control of the Iraqi oil to ignore us.

I do not think we can pull out tomorrow, but we need to start removing ourselves soon. Otherwise we will have to have a significant presence there for a long time, and I cannot think of any major occupying force that has succeeded in the long term.

 

[bobstod]

I do not think we can pull out tomorrow, but we need to start removing ourselves soon. Otherwise we will have to have a significant presence there for a long time, and I cannot think of any major occupying force that has succeeded in the long term. (92tide)

We are still in Germany after more than sixty years. We have been in Korea more than fifty. Japan as well.

I certainly don't think we can just pull everybody out in a month and kiss the whole thing off as a bad idea. We have to leave in planned stages, and we have to make it known that we are leaving. Although many believe that this is the worst thing we can do, I disagree.

Will the Kurds secede if we leave? Sure. But they're going to secede anyway. That's good news, not bad. They are our friends, and they are not dedicated to a religious form of government.

Will Iraq fall to an Iran invasion? I don't think so. Iraqis hate the Iranians, and they are very nationalistic. Wouldn't it be better for an occupying Iranian force to be fighting insurgency than it is for US to be fighting it?

Will there be a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis? Maybe. It is in the early stages already. But there is little we can do to stop that, and our presense exacerbates that situation. When we are gone, they will have to learn to live together, and they won't be able to blame everything on the US occupation.

Will an Iraqi state have a US style democratic government? Not a chance. Everybody in power there is in favor of an Islamic state.

I think we have to get out of Iraq at some point. The establishment of permanent military bases there does not guarantee a secure oil pipeline; and we will be able to build bases in a new Kurdish state if we deem it absolutely necessary to have a military presense.

I can't come to terms with the idea of invading a country because we want what they have.