BTC News uses an article in the NY Review of Books counseling a quick withdrawal from Iraq as a launching board for an interesting philosophical discussion on the issues at hand. The arguably inexact Vietnam analogy is made as well though the very differences make the current situation worse in some ways.* The bottom line is that both pragmatic and moral reasons were/are available to counsel us against the current course.
This should have sent up a big red warning flag. I would compare it to the death penalty. The basic reason why I am opposed to the death penalty is moral -- I do not think the state should be taking human life, especially given the imperfect guilt we all have in this imperfect society of ours. Thus, I'm like one commentator who admitted selective abolishment is sometimes hard to defend (here for minors), but clearly feels the system itself is rotten. All the same, quite a few pragmatic and procedural flaws of the system make capital punishment unjust as well.
Deep down, I opposed this war because I do not think we have the right to selectively go in and cause regime change. I also felt that the war party were not truly being honest with the American public, including the failure to admit our role in the evils of Saddam Hussein's regime. It was unjust to formulate this downright fantasy view of things and feel all so morally superior about ourselves. I also just didn't trust the administration, and the distrust was partly a growth of my belief that they showed themselves to be basically immoral.**
The whole second UN vote and all the rest added fuel to the fire, but as Tariq Ali would say, it's not like a truly official authorization of unjust wars make them just. Still, we have all these safeguards in place, including requiring we truly know the threats we supposedly are fighting for exist, in place partly to safeguard our moral judgment. The same applies to pragmatic concerns of the mess our actions might cause. And, not trusting an administration that had repeatedly shown that they do not deserve such trust. Thus, morality and pragmatism often works hand in hand. [see also the responses to the BTC piece]
I find much to agree with in the reference article, including the not quite honest stance of Kerry/Edwards. On that, I would offer the realities of politics, though at some point that doesn't quite do it. As to the quick withdrawal, which doesn't seem to be the loyal opposition's plan (though its very vagueness helps in that it adds flexibility), I think it is the best path. Our final claim to a just war is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. This cannot be done with a major occupying force, one that if anything often worsens the situation with its policies.
The reply is that "we broke it, we own it" philosophy. Fair enough, but our responsibility to fix the damage does not necessarily mean occupation. Our failure, for instance, to make the Iraqis a major partner in the rebuilding process (contracts and all) was a breach of such a responsibility. A continual occupation that furthers the disorder arguably does as well.
The feared disorder withdrawal (which won't be like over the weekend or anything, anyway) will bring is not an idle concern. All the same, unless we plan to continue an ever damaging occupation for years, true development into a successful state requires the Iraqis be in control of their own fate. Parents feel their children will be hurt if they let them out of their sights. They are, but such is how things work in the world.
A withdrawal, as discussed in the article, also hopefully will bring other pragmatic victories. The UN can have a larger and more respected role. We ourselves (along with Britain ... and we can't forget Poland!) might be trusted a bit more as a country that got rid of Saddam, but still stepped aside and let the people themselves rule. Occupation and imperialism has doomed Iraq from its inception.
Will we continue to stay a bad course because we fear for our reputation? This is the mentality of a gang member, and Iraq is one huge and messy knife fight. At some point, we have to learn that when the tag team of morality and pragmatism tries to show the wrongful nature of a certain path, it is useful to listen.
---
* The death tolls are a major difference as well, though our involvement in the Iran/Iraq War and continual support of the Hussein regime throughout their human rights violations should be factored in here as well. The morality of the sanctions also probably has to be tossed in though it's so hard to finding a proper device to use against such regimes that doesn't hurt innocents. The major point issue here, of course, is the vast difference in our own fatalities.
** It tends to be dangerous to rely on morality in such cases because too many people do not agree with you. Still, continual misrepresentation of the facts, bully tactics, refusal to respect basic democratic principles, and so forth at some point must be called by its proper name. I can say that I just didn't "trust" them, but on some level that is too weak. "Principle" works to some extent (he's "unprincipled"), but that too doesn't quite do it. It bears noting that the administration is not alone here, but is ably assisted by supporters and those that look on without much apparent concern.