I didn't have a conversation this afternoon. I listened, politely, but chose not to engage.

Because there was simply no point.

The other part didn't want a dialogue -- they wanted a concession and/or an abject surrender.

"If three thousand dead Americans haven't convinced you that this war is wrong, then you are either stupid, immoral, or insane."

Good grief! How does one even begin to respond to that comment as if it deserves to be dignified at all? how does one pretend that there is any intellectual or logical rigor to it?And when the speaker brought up the possibility, of friends, former students, or family members dying in Iraq, how could I even pretend it was anything but pathetic emotional blathering?

But I do have a response -- one I could have given if I thought that an argument might have had any chance of producing a meeting of the minds, or even mutual respect.

You see, I'm willing to concede that much of the premise for this war was wrong -- though not that Saddam Hussein was uninvolved with terrorism. And I'll concede that knowing what I know today, I would oppose beginning the war. However, both of those points are irrelevant.

The reality is that we are at war, and the criteria for determining whether or not US involvement is warranted does not revolve around why the war began or even the raw number of Americans and/or Iraqis killed to date.

No, the correct measure is whether we have the ability to improve the situation, the means to do so, and a plan for doing so. Indeed, if the answer to the first two is yes, then there is something of an obligation to develop the third.

You see, our actions created the reality that now exists in Iraq. Our obligation is to help the Iraqi people attain stability. If that means making an additional commitment of troops to do so -- as was the position of the Democrats for most of the last two years -- then we should do so. Indeed, withdrawal should only be an option if it can be shown that it will lead to an improvement in the status quo. That is one of the lessons that needs to be drawn from the debacle in Southeast Asia thirty years ago -- the situation that followed America's withdrawal was infinitely worse than what preceded it. Our departure from Iraq would similarly lead to sectarian and ethnic strife being rachetted up, unless the paramilitary groups are neutralized and the terror groups defeated by securing Baghdad and Anbar OR unless the country is peacefully partitioned. The former is the President's goal, and it is attainable.

Now there is the focus on casualties. Iraq has been a relatively low-casualty conflict for American troops. During WW II, there were single days that saw more dead. Vietnam saw years with more casualties than the American military has sustained in nearly four. And while every death is an unspeakable tragedy, that does not mean it is a useless or senseless tragedy. I learned that lesson at my father's knee growing up, listening to him explain that the job of a soldier or sailor is to be prepared to die for something greater than himself. The only unacceptable death is one that does not come in the furtherance of a necessary objective in the conflict at hand. As such, the notion of "too many deaths" is almost a nonsensical one, provided that those lives are not being pissed away with no objective, or after it becomes clear that the objective cannot be attained. I do not yet believe that we are at such a point.

Does this mean I am evil? No, it means that I view the death toll as a gut-wrenching but unavoidable by-product of the nation's decision to go to war.

Does this mean I am insane? I think not, for my position is based upon facts and reality, not upon a spasmodic emotional reaction.

Does mean I m stupid? I do not believe so, as my position is one based upon an analysis of the facts.

On the other hand, I will concede one point quite willingly -- it is quite possible that my analysis of the situation is somehow flawed. Error, how ever, is not the same as immorality, insanity, or stupidity. I remain prepared to be convinced that I am wrong by a fact-based logical analysis of the consequences of withdrawal and/or our ability to improve the situation by staying.

Emotional attacks and ad hominem argument, on the other hand, will not even be acknowledged.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 4 kb.