kpoe

So long as we can agree that there are viable reasons for a country to enter into an armed conflict besides protecting their own sovereignty, the point stands. Once you can admit that, then you can begin to consider the merits of those other reasons. I agree that we don't have a good track record when it comes to intervention, but I don't think that's a sufficient argument for not intervening in the future. No, it's definitely not revisionist history, but I can understand why you think it is. The truth is that the treatment of his own people and the crazy things he'd do to stay in power played a huge role in the decision to invade Iraq. But don't take my word for it, read the War Resolution yourself: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf For your convenience, some of those reasons: Also don't forget about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed unanimously in the Senate and with 90% support in the house, with the stated policy to "remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." That would probably be a good source of the reasons we wanted to do it, right? https://beta.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ338/PLAW-105publ338.pdf Some of the reasons: Unfortunately the administration did sell the war hard publicly on the idea of WMDs, and I think that was a huge mistake. They focussed far too much on ultimately faulty intelligence instead of focusing on what was established fact. This is a cop out, honestly, and I hear it a lot. Saddam Hussein and his regime were particularly gruesome. Honestly I'd be in favor of doing whatever is possible to stop mad men from committing the sort of atrocities that he was known for, any time, any where. Don't delude yourself into thinking that he was just as bad as every other tyrannical dictator. THAT would be revisionist history. It would be really convenient too. But the truth is much more messy, and creates a much harder moral problem to consider. I'm in favor of doing whatever is possible to prevent the brutal genocide of the Kurdish people. What's happening right now is not acceptable. I don't like getting involved in foreign conflicts, but when women and children are being executed and in some cases buried alive in mass quantities, and when they're begging for help (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/iraqi-who-survived-saddam-hussein-4047266), it's time to step the fuck up. It's difficult, though. Of course it is. It's very easy to be exhausted with Iraq and avoid getting involved. Administration officials did mislead the public and that makes people very skeptical about what we do there, and for good reason. The real test of moral and political courage would be the willingness to stand up, acknowledge past mistakes, but still maintain that we're not going to let Islamic authoritarians of any type massacre an ethnic population in the most gruesome manner imaginable. The easy way out, of course, is to shake our heads and say "not our problem". But that's obvious. Of course it's not our problem. It's the problem of the people getting forced out of their homes and marched to a mountain top to starve to death in the name of Islam, or the child that's holding on to life while getting dirt buried on top of her. It's their problem, but they don't have the means to solve it themselves. So do we let them die? That answer, to me at least, is obvious. The trickier bit comes in figuring out the best way to help them without actually growing Islamic fundamentalism in the process. That should be the topic of discussion, really. Letting a genocide occur should be a non-option, but instead we need to be asking how we ought to act in a way that doesn't actually encourage this sort of thing in the future or come back to haunt us.

Two things, quickly: (1) You seem to imply that for the United States to engage in armed conflict it must first satisfy the condition that its sovereignty is threatened. This sounds nice, but there is no basis in our history for such a condition. As you know (given your strong background in history), our very own revolution relied on foreign intervention. It's hard to take seriously an argument for why such intervention on behalf of our people is permissible but to do so on behalf of another group of people is somehow unacceptable. (2) Okay, hollow threats to US liberty and freedom aside-- we're in agreement about the hollowness, I think, you also say there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. This really trivializes the magnitude of the horror of Saddam's Ba'athist regime and the scale of violence inflicted upon so many people by his direct command. Say the war wasn't worth it, say it was poorly executed, say we shouldn't have done it, but don't say there was "no reason" to go to war with Iraq. That would be a lie. Some general thoughts: This is a pretty complicated situation that's arising in Iraq. Truthfully it has less to do with our withdrawal and more to do with al-Maliki's death grip on power, which comes at the cost of alienating religious minorities in the country that reside in Sunni dominated regions. This has made it somewhat easier for certain former Ba'athists, disgruntled about being excluded in Iraq's future, who also happen to have the knowledge and military experience from the old regime, to take over such regions. On top of this, there's also the fundamentalist ISIS that we're hearing so much about. You'd think Ba'athism would be an enemy of ISIS (since it has traditionally been secular), but there's a weird sort of alliance of opportunity that's arising between the two. It seems the old Ba'athist crew (which was already pretty horrible and hell bent on maintaining power at all costs) may be willing to team up with these similarly authoritarian Islamic fundamentalists for the sake of getting some power back. The results are devastating. One point that may be lost, I think, is that a lot of the horrible things that are happening are happening at the hands of the people we helped remove from power. These are those people, at least in many cases. The difference is that we are starting to get pictures and video of the sort of violence that only used to be documented in print. I think we all probably agree that this is a deplorable tragedy that's unfolding. It's pretty pointless to argue over whether we do or don't have boots on the ground. The real question is whether or not we should do something, if so what that would entail, and the implications if we don't intervene. Any takers?