if it’s hubris that keeps us “from focusing on the needs of that country,’ then we’d better ask ourselves the same question about more than 100 countries.

By your logic, we could never say we’ve done wrong. We’re there, so we have to finish it. In your mind, is there a possibility that we could err in enering a war? Could we ever, I mean ever, err in that way?

you said: Whatever the initial justifications, “our” war ultimately was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help Iraq set up a new government.

I read that as helping the Iraqi people. Is there some other reason for helping to set up a government?

Thanks for the response. I have to say I’m confused and disappointed by mine and others’ desire for justice being construed as a “mandatory diatibe” and an unworthy position or even, apparently, ingredient, in this discussion. You seem to agree that we were led through deceit ino this war, but, really amazingly to me, a discussion about the people who did that deceiving seems to you undeserving of mention. You want to deal with *today*? Well, *today *the people leading our country are the ones that we accuse of lying.

?????

Are we just supposed to trust them now? How about if they raped our sisters? Yesterday’s business? Just get on with it and tell your sister to “deal with today”?

Hyperbole admitted, but I honestly can not understand not wanting to hold liars–liars who’s lies led to war–accountable. It breaks the limits of logic.

Something else occurs to me: I will lightly accuse you and Polimom of simply shoveling anyone, like myself, who believes we should get out of Iraq with simply being too full of anger at Bush to address our arguments as they stand. My decision is not based on my anger, as much as you seem to want to believe it. I laid out in my last response largely what it was about. You did not respond to those points.

You’re saying that telling the American people that a country had WMDs and were planning on using them on us is ultimately the same as helping the Iraqi people?

No, I’m not saying that, nor did I anywhere say we went in there to “help the Iraqi people”. We were trying to replace a government.

In fact, I’m not talking about what was said to the American people at all — or I wasn’t in the post. I’m talking about Iraq. Now. Today.

Is it hubris that keeps us from focusing on the needs of that country, rather than the guilt and/or politics of our own?

Thom seems a bit upset . . . not entirely sure why your post had such a terrible effect on his blood pressure, but there it is. Thom just doesn’t seem to be able to get past what he (and you, I believe) consider a bad/immoral/deceitful reason given for invading Iraq. He seems totally hung in March of 2003, unable to consider a course of action (in 2006) without the mandatory diatribe against Bush/the neocons/PNAC/whoever. Failure to agree with the diatribe on all points requires him to argue until you do agree, and nothing else related to Iraq can be considered or discussed until that happens. That attitude is unfortunately common in the blogosphere. In fact, it is not unknown in Congress.

As I understand your post, you are saying that however the US went in to Iraq, we are there now, and have some moral obligation to the Iraqi people to neither “cut and run” nor dictate to the new Iraqi government what its policies should be. The Iraqi people will have to live with each other in Iraq long after the US troops are gone, and as I understand your post, you are saying that we owe it to them to help them to pull together into a functioning country before we leave–even if we don’t like some of the decisions their government makes.

Surely that is a completely rational position to have? Whether we went in as part of a conspiracy of lies, a festival of arrogance and ignorance, or a well thought out strategy that has been badly botched in the implementation (thanks, Rummy) should not matter. Surely having come in to Iraq and “broken all the china” we have a moral duty to help the Iraqis put some of it back together? Or if not a moral duty, how about a pragmatic, self interested desire to not leave behind a worse mess, and a greater danger to US security, than existed before we went in?

I don’t think Thom is using internal politics to make his argument; I expect it’s genuine outrage. However, outrage is not a strategy, and it is certainly not an objective. If the objective is extraction of US military from Iraq while doing the least new additional harm, then it is reasonable to debate how to do that. If the objective is extraction of US military from Iraq ASAP without consideration of any additional harm that might cause the Iraqis, then that is a different objective. If one accepts the former objective, and if whatever strategy is chosen accomplishes that objective, but requires additional US servicemen to die to implement it, that is the price that must be paid.

Of course, if the disagreement is over the appropriate objective, then it is pointless to debate strategy or moral obligations to support the Iraqi people. Might as well just spell out the conflict in objectives and argue it out in the open.

I don’t understand. You’re saying that telling the American people that a country had WMDs and were planning on using them on us is ultimately the same as helping the Iraqi people? That is so far beyond understanding that I can hardly hold it in my head. Did we enter WWII to help the Japanese and German people? No. We entered to make them dead and to help ourselves and those attacked by the bastards and thank god we did. Did we fight the first Gulf War to help the Iraqi people? Of course not. And “We” went to war, we the United States, we the citizens, based on information that said we were in danger.

We went there to protect ourselves. Not to help anybody else. We went there to help the U.S. of A. That’s why soldiers stood in front of bullets on the first day of this war. To stop a dangerous man bent on killing us and equipped to do it–that’s what we were told. the “helping the Iraqi people” reason was after the fact. To use it at all as a base for discussion is impossible for me. And it should be for anybody.

And while I agree that the neocons did it on the front end and did it with lies and did it shamelessly and heartlessly and lethally, I strongly disagree with your contention that “the other end” are inappropriately using Iraq for “internal politics.” Wanting to stop Americans from dying in what someone sees as an illegal and immoral war is not *using* anybody. It is the only responsible position for someone who sees it that way. It is frankly insulting–you are, whether you mean to or not, saying that to me. Or, if it’s simply linguistics: if that is “using Iraqis for internal politics,” then it is proper and honorable to do so. We are Americans. We have a say in this country’s government. We dont have a say in the Iraqis’ and we must work with what tools we have. I am not an Iraqi citizen.

And what of Darfur? What of Nigeria? What of half the planet? Should we ultimately start a war with every country on Earth, if that’s what wars are, expressions of care for attacked country’s people? 50,000 Iraqis have died in this war. Think of that. Killed by Americans–ultimatley to help them?

I agree that putting blinders of anger on is wrong. Today must be viewed as today. Today Americans are dying in an immoral war being run by inept and immoral people. It must be stopped by American people. Then we can look at the world and see what we can do.