Appeasement?
As I see it, the argument against pulling our troops out of the Middle East is it will demonstrate to the terrorists that terrorism works, and they will therefore use it more in the future. Also, that staying we kill current terrorists. The problem of giving incentive to our enemies is a real one, and I recognize it.
The argument for pulling out is that our mere presence angers people, then you add in all the killing and destruction and they really get pissed off. Pissed off people who would have otherwise supported the US and worked against terrorists, don't; people who would have been basically indifferent now somewhat support terrorism; people who were already anti-US become far more likely to actively oppose us. These active opposers choose the method of the 'poor and powerless', namely terrorism. Pulling out will stop the pissing off from getting worse, thus fewer terrorists.
Which of these effects dominates? I don't know. What I do know is that as long as our troops stay over there, non-terrorist Arabs die by the thousand, and, more importantly, our troops die by the day (or more often). If they wanted us to stop defending our borders or to not allow women to vote or to pay them billions of dollars in 'aid', I'd say fuck 'em, but what they (or most of them) want is for us to leave them alone. This is a legitimate desire and is in our best interests. If there is a way to do that mitigates the problem of incentives, then I'm all ears, but we need to get out of Iraq ASAP. This isn't appeasement, this is called obeying the first rule of finding yourself in a hole: you stop digging deeper.
The argument for pulling out is that our mere presence angers people, then you add in all the killing and destruction and they really get pissed off. Pissed off people who would have otherwise supported the US and worked against terrorists, don't; people who would have been basically indifferent now somewhat support terrorism; people who were already anti-US become far more likely to actively oppose us. These active opposers choose the method of the 'poor and powerless', namely terrorism. Pulling out will stop the pissing off from getting worse, thus fewer terrorists.
Which of these effects dominates? I don't know. What I do know is that as long as our troops stay over there, non-terrorist Arabs die by the thousand, and, more importantly, our troops die by the day (or more often). If they wanted us to stop defending our borders or to not allow women to vote or to pay them billions of dollars in 'aid', I'd say fuck 'em, but what they (or most of them) want is for us to leave them alone. This is a legitimate desire and is in our best interests. If there is a way to do that mitigates the problem of incentives, then I'm all ears, but we need to get out of Iraq ASAP. This isn't appeasement, this is called obeying the first rule of finding yourself in a hole: you stop digging deeper.
1 Comments:
You're right about all the reasons we shouldn't be in Iraq. But at this point, would it be beneficial or moral to withdraw troops?
We've made a mess in Iraq, leaving now won't eliminate the terrorists who exist (and existed before 9/11). Instead, we will leave a country in shambles--one whose people we promised democracy. Leaving Iraq as it is will probably incite more anger,--and hence terrorism-- allow for another brutal regime to take power in Iraq, and leave the Iraqi people oppressed.
We should get out of Iraq ASAP, but I think this hole is so deep that the solution just isn't going to be as simple as just withdrawing the troops.
By
Alla, at Jul 13, 2005, 2:37:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home