Safer?

So. Here’s the money quote from yesterday.

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) questions Gen. David Petraeus:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind.

If even the guy in charge cannot say that us being there, that over 3700 of our troops dying there, is making us safer here, then maybe we shouldn’t be there.

Comments

[Ed]

It just boggles the mind. It would be comedic if it wasn't for all the lives it is costing, American and Iraqi. What a waste, what a shameful waste and we can't even get a straight answer.

[Dave M]

The problem is that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I don't think the invasion was legal or justified (neither did the UN).
I think evidence for the need to act was, if not falsified, overstated.
I don't think we really should be there.

But we are.

We went in and made a mess of the place. To date we have not enabled an infrastructure that can cope with the devestation that has largely been caused by our presence.

To withdraw could cause utter chaos. Utter chaos in any country in that part of the world is not good. A power vacuum wil appear, attracting who knows what kind of despotic regime and maybe we will HAVE to go back in a few years to sort out the mess caused by the mess that we left as a result of the mess we started many years ago by putting Saddam there in the first place.

My question is: Is there a moral imperative here?

Is it right to walk away from this?

Yes, there is a huge cost, but the decision to invade was made by certain nations. Surely those certain nations have a responsibility to mankind to finish what they started properly and not make the lame excuse of "It's not our problem" when, clearly, it is.

I can't see any way that this ends well, but someone needs to take responsibility to fix it.

Isolationism is fine, but it goes both ways. To (almost) unilaterally weild military might on a global level means you don't have an isolationist policy.

Boys throw stones and run away. Men stick around and deal with the concequences.

We shouldn't have thrown the stone.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Who is going to put it back?

[scott]

Boys throw stones and run away. Men stick around and deal with the concequences.

But by sticking around we are just making things worse. History has taught us that you cannot defeat an insurgency if the population isn't with you.

The Iraqi population is not with us. They want us to leave.
The Iraqi government is not with us. They want us to leave.

Therefore, we cannot succeed. All we can do is continue to make things worse with our presence, be an invaluable recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, be an invaluable training camp for al Qaeda and enrich the corrupt multinational corporations sucking billions from the taxpayers thanks to no oversight and bids won through no competition.

And all the time our soldiers keep dying.