Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Iraq debate carries on, the latest installment, I guess, being the debatathon in the Senate. I have my thoughts about it all, but I'm at a distance perhaps too detached, perhaps too ill informed to render a sound judgement. A couple questions come to mind on how to frame an answer to the question: Do we continue the war or not?
How about a scale of 1 to 5 on this small, non-comprehensive list of questions:
Does the war (1) help or (5) hurt US security?
I think about a 2 here. I think it hampers Al-Qaida and the like and ties up their resources just like it ties up ours.
Does the war (1) help or (5) world security?
I give it a 2 as well here for the same reasons.
Is world security (5) the job of the US or (1) not?
Can the terroists (5) be negotiated with or (1) not?
Not even remotely: 1.
Is the goal of helping start democracy in Iraq the (5) right or (1) wrong goal?
I'll say 4 here, but note the Iraqis need to have the wherewithal to grab it and keep it once it's been made available and I wonder about that. If it were to take, it would be a very good thing. At that, though, I wonder about the cultural reality of that stance. I'm aware I'm operating in an idealistic mode on this one.
Is the war really (1) local to Iraq or, in fact, (3) regional, or even perhaps (5) worldwide?
I would actually say 4. I think it's certainly regional given Iran and Syria's involvement, but has tentacles extending worldwide—attacks in Europe, etc.
Do the terrorists want to take down the West because of (1) what we are, or (5) what we've done?
I think 4. Certainly the US is not lily white, but culturally, I think the Arab world hates the wealth and liberal culture that the West has produced as they watch themselves fail to adapt to modernity.
There are endless more questions; those just came to mind.
Tough problem.
How about a scale of 1 to 5 on this small, non-comprehensive list of questions:
Does the war (1) help or (5) hurt US security?
I think about a 2 here. I think it hampers Al-Qaida and the like and ties up their resources just like it ties up ours.
Does the war (1) help or (5) world security?
I give it a 2 as well here for the same reasons.
Is world security (5) the job of the US or (1) not?
On practicality reasons and that of trade, I'll say 3. Among other things, we keep sea lanes open for shipping for everyone, basically because we're the only one with the navy to do it with.
Can the terroists (5) be negotiated with or (1) not?
Not even remotely: 1.
Is the goal of helping start democracy in Iraq the (5) right or (1) wrong goal?
I'll say 4 here, but note the Iraqis need to have the wherewithal to grab it and keep it once it's been made available and I wonder about that. If it were to take, it would be a very good thing. At that, though, I wonder about the cultural reality of that stance. I'm aware I'm operating in an idealistic mode on this one.
Is the war really (1) local to Iraq or, in fact, (3) regional, or even perhaps (5) worldwide?
I would actually say 4. I think it's certainly regional given Iran and Syria's involvement, but has tentacles extending worldwide—attacks in Europe, etc.
Do the terrorists want to take down the West because of (1) what we are, or (5) what we've done?
I think 4. Certainly the US is not lily white, but culturally, I think the Arab world hates the wealth and liberal culture that the West has produced as they watch themselves fail to adapt to modernity.
There are endless more questions; those just came to mind.
Tough problem.
# posted by goldpython @ 3:29 PM 
