As regular readers of this site and my other writings know, I believe that the U.S. presence in Iraq served its purpose—the removal of the presumed threat to American lives within our borders (however plausible that threat may have been)—some time ago, with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Given that all individuals and all peoples have the right of self-defense, anything that happened thereafter, according to classical liberal principles, was neither our responsibility nor any business of ours, unless it should come to pose a plausible threat to American citizens within our borders once again.
As I have argued in the past, I am hopeful that the U.S. military surge in Iraq will put an end to our involvement there, and soon. Nonetheless, I sympathize with the plight of the Iraqi population under attack by brutally violent Muslim fanatics under the aegis of al Qaeda.
Thus I agree fully with Rich Lowry, a strong supporter of the Iraq War, in his assessment of the situation facing the Iraqi people, in today’s National Review Online:
At this village level, the war on terror is less a grand ideological struggle than an elemental fight to replace men with guns who want to prey on the local population (al-Qaeda) with men with guns who want to help it (us). It doesn’t take a romanticism about human nature to realize most people will prefer the latter.
This is a quite profound statement, and one which applies to nearly all such struggles. In addition, it succinctly identifies the laudable motive behind the continued U.S. presence in Iraq.
It doesn’t justify intrusion in other nations’ sovereign affairs, but it is a reality which we all should acknowledge.
Lowry’s conclusion:
It is hard to imagine what the military is for if not to capture or kill al-Qaeda (through “lead poisoning,” as an officer puts it colorfully). Before he lets his American visitors leave his front yard, Hassen Nssaif Jasim insists that they take home a message: “We are very serious, and we are going to go all the way to the end of the path. We don’t want you to leave.” And we shouldn’t.
Here I strongly disagree. It’s in fact quite easy to imagine what the U.S. military is for: to protect the lives of U.S. citizens within our borders and on official public business elsewhere. That is all, and it is quite enough.
The situation in Iraq today is tragic and appalling, but we have neither the responsibility nor the right to interfere with it.
Sympathy is a fine thing and essential to humanity, but we must never let it override reason.
Thanks for your follow-up, Mike. Actually, I have made the point that our adventure in Iraq has diverted resources from what should be our real effort in the region: a full-out attack on al Qaeda in all of its strongholds to destroy it entirely. That goal is fully in accord with classical liberal principles and would, I believe, greatly strengthen the security of American citizens within our borders.
I think that our differences are not so much on principle as on differing understandings of the facts and the appropriate strategies they suggest.
Sam, I kind of figured you knew we must defeat al Qaeda, and yours is certainly a valid opinion that Iraq isn’t furthering that goal, but the “we’ve killed Saddam and his sons and now whatever is there is none of our business” seems to me short sighted.
If the American military wasn’t in Iraq now, chances are that not only would sectarian violence probably erupt, but al-Qaeda would seek to take over the country. This is a very real threat, and the implications would be devastating for America and its citizens’ safety. This is what the Democrat cut-and-run crowd just doesn’t get. It would be perceived, and sold, the world over as an American defeat. And the “weak horse” argument of Bin Laden would only embolden the terrorist to strike again and again.
Fortunately, the surge has lessened the possibility of our defeat, and there comes a point when we have to let the Iraqis govern their own country, but now is now the time.
Actually, Mike, in my writings on this issue I have maintained that pursuing and defeating al Qaeda is indeed a legitimate function of the U.S. national government. I don’t agree that our continued presence in Iraq contributes significantly to that goal, however, and instead maintain that the investment would be much better made elsewhere.
Sam,
Interesting that you equate the only legitimate threat to America with its boarders. The reason we are still in Iraq is not so much about the Iraqi people, but that the interests of the Iraqi people coincide with ours. That is, the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq is incredibly important for our national self-interest and safety. If we leave Iraq prematurely and al-Qaeda declares victory, no border will protect us. I see this as amazingly short-sighted on the “classical liberal” side.
A stable, secure and somewhat Democratic Iraq is more than just a feel good goal of American foreign policy. It is a necessity in the greater global war on Islamic radicalism. I believe we have both the right and the responsibility not to “interfere” as you negatively put it, but to defend and protect America in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This has nothing to do with the “unnecessary foreign entanglements” our founders warned us against. It is absolutely necessary to stay on the offensive in this war, and that means we cannot be limited to our boarders.