20060320   

Michael considered fate at 11:30   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

---

Comment posted by  Ingrid @ 3/20/2006 6:49 PM:

You seem to forget that the reason we initially went into Iraq was because they supposedly posed an imminent threat to the United States. It was only after no WMDs were found that the liberation of Iraqis became the primary purpose for invading. 

---

Comment posted by  Michael @ 3/20/2006 6:53 PM:

Excellent point, and I never agreed with the reasoning that started this war.. but at this juncture, can we pull out and leave a pile of rubble simply because we didn't find what we expected? We've sorta put ourselves between a rock and a hard place here, and leaving is going to make us look horrible while staying is also likely to make us look horrible.

bummer. 

I realized, in hindsight, that my post from yesterday might come off a bit pro-war and overly patriotic. Indeed, that wasn't my intention at all. Admittedly, I am somewhat on the fence as far as the United States involvement in Iraq goes. As with many, I question the validity of a dump-and-run retreat, even if I didn't agree with going in the first place. At this point I feel as though there is a moral imperative to not leave the Iraqi's out to dry, while at the same time I don't necessarily think we should be there if we are not welcome. Regardless, it is clearly a heated issue which lends many more questions than it does answers.

What is perhaps more important is the question of a free people: does one's freedom impose an obligation to free others? On the surface this, of course, appears to be an easy issue. Step into the middle east, however, and things get a bit more messy. Some will argue that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a justified freeing of the people; firmly planted on moral high ground. Others will argue that it was not the place of the United States to impose their democracy on others. Some will argue that freedom of the people should be a right of every citizen on mother earth but those same people are more likely than not enjoying mac & cheese and late night television. Things look different in the trenches. Some people have a different view of freedom. Some people do not want to be free. Others find the freedom of corporate tyranny not as liberating as the average American.

These are not the problems of our time. These are not the problems of our people. These are the problems of an entire species, and ultimately not ones that will be fixed or solved overnight, nor over the next century, no matter how much we believe they will be. Believing is not enough, for blind faith is the enemy of a free people, and this is what we should put our backs into, heart and soul; keeping our minds open and free to dreams nobody has ever told us about before.

Perhaps if Bush sounded more like Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell speech of 1961 (text here) I'd currently have more faith in the "world's police". Nonetheless, it would hopefully not be blind.

I'll leave you with two excerpts:

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

...

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.