4 of 123

Write now Article Tools

If having wrecked Iraq is sufficient rationale to continue the destruction, what would be sufficient rationale to end it? It is generally agreed that "Dabuya" initiated the War in Iraq on false premises, since there was no Saddam connection to 9-11 or to al-Qaeda and there were no real threats of Iraq using Weapons of Mass Destruction against America or our allies, since there were none. Thus, the basis for invading Iraq was only deception and fabrication. If that had been well known before America invaded, there would have been massive public protests against the concept of invading a country that posed no threat to us. America would not have invaded Iraq if the truth had been told by the American leadership. However, the fact is that America did invade Iraq and that fact is now being used as the strongest justification for continuing to fight the war.

If it is too painfully embarrassing to admit that we made a mistake in invading Iraq that we must continue to fight indefinitely, that same rationale could be used to support fighting a war against any opponent. If the reasons for entering a war don't really matter, then there is no moral justification for the war. If there is no moral justification for it, there must be some other basis for it. Is it that "losing face" by acknowledging the war was an error would call into question America's judgment and morality? If so, then we are unwilling to be honest. If we are so vain that we refuse to acknowledge reality, what else are we refusing to deal with? The current financial crisis in America seems to indicate that there are major disconnects in areas of American life that are similarly being ignored. Without honest assessments, we are confused and lost.

It appears to be true that the "surge" has decreased violence in Iraq, but it is still unacceptably common. It is said that the condition in the street has returned to that of 2005, but that is still much higher violence than under Saddam. In any case, the current levels of violence in Iraq do not constitute anything close to peace. What will happen after the "surge" in troop deployments is reduced? Already, as troop levels decrease, the violence from Iraqi insurgents has begun to increase again. If the status quo is woefully unacceptable, what makes anyone believe that continuing to fight another 5 or 10 years will result in political reconciliation, where it has not happened to date. Where's the impetus for change?

Clearly, there are winners and losers in today's

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Debate on the war in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!