There was a very interesting discussion this morning on Face the Nation about the Iraq situation. Rep. Murtha and Sen. Shelby both addressed the issue (although separately) and both made excellent points and both were statesmanlike in their presentations.
Nobody talked about oil, and nobody talked about a permanent US presence in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops.
The last three posts, by Bamaro, NYBF, and pcola are the kind of response I was hoping for when I started this thread. I have not taken a position with regard to the rightness or wrongness of acting militarily to secure what is in our national interests (in this case, a supply of oil). What I have done is express my philosophical conflict about it. I'm trying to come to a resolution of the moral conflict between personal ethics and national ethics.
Bamaro addressed the issue from a Christian point of view, which I appreciate. Much of the Christian coda is integral to my own moral belief system, although not all of it. I agree with his overall conclusion (There are certainly much better ways of protecting ourselves from an oil crisis than a premptive invasion of another country.)
Pcola gave us an amazingly clear look at the strategic picture, one that I wish I could commit to memory. Somewhere in there is a position I can support; but the details of it still elude me. I like the idea of a stable democratic state in the middle east, with friendly relations toward the US and a trade agreement including oil. I'm not sure that it is achievable in an Islamic state; and I feel strongly that an Islamic state is what will emerge in Iraq, after all our efforts and blood. I feel that our national policy with regard to Israel needs adujstment in a direction that will encourage rapproachment between Palestininans and other Arab states with Israel, and reduce the resentment that they (Islamic countries) feel towards us.
NYBF voices much of what I feel and believe about Muslim countries. They are almost universally backwards, except in their capital cities. Poverty and ignorance abound, the division between rich and poor is dramatic, and the gap is wide. No doubt much of the hatred that they feel for us is a result of the picture painted by those in power, who in most cases are the clerics, or those who use the clerics to further their political power. Where NYBF and I digress is in his conclusion: He sees Islam as a cancer that needs to be removed from the world. That implies a global religious war, and I don't think that is either right or inevitable. I still cling to the belief that through communication, which in our time is expanding expotentially in every direction, the differences between our cultures will erode and we will be able to aviod woldwide conflict.
I am still of the belief that our very presence in Iraq is the cause of much of the bloodshed, and I believe that a withdrawal is necessary, both to ease the tensions there and to place the burden of rebuilding their government more squarely on Iraqi shoulders. On the other hand, since we destroyed much of their infrastructure and have been slow and inefficient in rebuilding it, I see that we have an obligation there. However, when we have to devote so much of our efforts to security, rebuilding electric plants is difficult at best. Maybe we should withdraw to Kuwait, as Murtha suggests, and let the Iraqis stabilize before we go further with the restoration of these services.
It is a knotty problem. I can imagine that, no matter who the president was, he would be catching heat about how we are doing there. Bush, however, got us in there by bullheadedness and impatience and (IMHO) a predisposition for a military invasion. Therefore, the heat is well deserved.
Nobody talked about oil, and nobody talked about a permanent US presence in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops.
The last three posts, by Bamaro, NYBF, and pcola are the kind of response I was hoping for when I started this thread. I have not taken a position with regard to the rightness or wrongness of acting militarily to secure what is in our national interests (in this case, a supply of oil). What I have done is express my philosophical conflict about it. I'm trying to come to a resolution of the moral conflict between personal ethics and national ethics.
Bamaro addressed the issue from a Christian point of view, which I appreciate. Much of the Christian coda is integral to my own moral belief system, although not all of it. I agree with his overall conclusion (There are certainly much better ways of protecting ourselves from an oil crisis than a premptive invasion of another country.)
Pcola gave us an amazingly clear look at the strategic picture, one that I wish I could commit to memory. Somewhere in there is a position I can support; but the details of it still elude me. I like the idea of a stable democratic state in the middle east, with friendly relations toward the US and a trade agreement including oil. I'm not sure that it is achievable in an Islamic state; and I feel strongly that an Islamic state is what will emerge in Iraq, after all our efforts and blood. I feel that our national policy with regard to Israel needs adujstment in a direction that will encourage rapproachment between Palestininans and other Arab states with Israel, and reduce the resentment that they (Islamic countries) feel towards us.
NYBF voices much of what I feel and believe about Muslim countries. They are almost universally backwards, except in their capital cities. Poverty and ignorance abound, the division between rich and poor is dramatic, and the gap is wide. No doubt much of the hatred that they feel for us is a result of the picture painted by those in power, who in most cases are the clerics, or those who use the clerics to further their political power. Where NYBF and I digress is in his conclusion: He sees Islam as a cancer that needs to be removed from the world. That implies a global religious war, and I don't think that is either right or inevitable. I still cling to the belief that through communication, which in our time is expanding expotentially in every direction, the differences between our cultures will erode and we will be able to aviod woldwide conflict.
I am still of the belief that our very presence in Iraq is the cause of much of the bloodshed, and I believe that a withdrawal is necessary, both to ease the tensions there and to place the burden of rebuilding their government more squarely on Iraqi shoulders. On the other hand, since we destroyed much of their infrastructure and have been slow and inefficient in rebuilding it, I see that we have an obligation there. However, when we have to devote so much of our efforts to security, rebuilding electric plants is difficult at best. Maybe we should withdraw to Kuwait, as Murtha suggests, and let the Iraqis stabilize before we go further with the restoration of these services.
It is a knotty problem. I can imagine that, no matter who the president was, he would be catching heat about how we are doing there. Bush, however, got us in there by bullheadedness and impatience and (IMHO) a predisposition for a military invasion. Therefore, the heat is well deserved.
