Reply #179: You ignore an awful lot of stuff that has happened since that vote [View All]

[TayTay]

You ignore the variable shades of grey that inhabit all moral grounds. The original vote for the IWR was based on lies and falsehoods. Even the media know that now. But that is, largely, irrelevent to the fact that we are there now and that we have to figure out what to do going forward.

The sustainable arguments having to do with the length of the timetable are also moral arguments. They have to do with trying to kepp people from dying, if it is within our power to do so. Juan Cole has addressed this. His recent articles about withdrawal have also been fraught with concern about what happens to the people we left behind. I think the Iraqis also merit concern and that we cannot just leave them, while, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that our presence is a draw for insurgents. (That's why it's a quagmire. Not because it is an easy fix, but because it isn't and it is fraught with moral dilemmas on all sides.)

I also wish that all Dems would say, as Kerry did, that the US has no intentions of establishing permanent bases in Iraq. That would help. The idea of a timetable might help by convincing Iraqis that we have no permanent plans to stay. But, we also have to tell Iraq that we are not abandoning a people that we invaded and causes so much harm to. (Again, if it was easy, Bush would have done it already and declared victory and gone home, as his father did before him.)

What happens if Al Sistani is assasinated? Should the US maintain a base for air support for the Iraqis if it might hold off total civil war and allow the various factions breathing room. (The whole purpose of this would be to stop some needless death, that is a moral reason, btw.)