Source:

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting
  terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and
  standing up security forces.
  
• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and
  providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and
  on its way to achieving its economic potential.
  
• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure,
  well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the
  global war on terrorism.

It's that longer term that scares me. What exactly is being a "full partner in the global war on terrorism?" It sounds to me like our respect for Iraq as a democracy is limited. If their people vote in ways that aren't allied with US interests, does that mean we will have an excuse attack their parliment? You can't be claiming to fight for the freedom of a population and simultaneously tell them how they need to react to situations.

Tags: iraq, politics
Current Music: phish - Maze

Dear Kathryn Jean Lopez,

How are you? I notice that, once again, you complain about the actions of Congress because they might hurt the morale of the troops. ("I can't imagine, meanwhile, how mad I would be if I were watching this from Iraq right now. Congress isn't the biggest morale booster, that's for sure.") While that is unfortunate, that should not be the defining rule of what a democracy discusses.

I don't think anyone would consider Starship Troopers an anti-war book, but it's explained there. Troops are a tool of the government. We tell them what to do, they do it to the best of their ability, frequently heroically. If it turns out that we told them to do something that was a mistake, or not the most productive use of our forces, it is the role of the government to make that decision. Shirking that duty would be wrong.

To use an analogy, suppose we were - say - building an expensive bridge in the middle of Alaska. Engineers are getting excited to face the challenges of building a complicated structure in that environment. Groups of workers are willing to risk their lives to build it. Would it be wrong to discuss if building this bridge is a worthwhile goal because it would ruin the morale of the workers? Of course not. Similarly, it's not wrong to discuss if what the troops are doing is in the interests of the United States. That's what democracy is about.

Sincerely,

Zzyzx

P. S. One of these days, I'd love to read why it's wrong even to consider embryonic stem cell research because it's killing a potential future life in the hopes of extending others, but it's perfectly fine to engage in activities that have killed actual lives (speaking of the civilian accidental deaths that happen in any war) in order to give them a freedom that they didn't exactly seem clamoring for.

Tags: politics