Hitchens Vs. Hitchens

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're going by the rationale that bad things might happen in a far-off part of the world without a constant American military presence, why not go occupy Africa? That place is a giant shithole, and a failure to occupy Africa is going to lead to as least as much suffering and death as a failure to continue occupying Iraq.

Of course, I am not seriously arguing that America should go occupy a few African countries. I'm just pointing out that the "we can't leave because bad things might happen if we do" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense because bad things are happening all over the world thanks to a lack of involvement of first-world forces, and we recognize that those things will continue to happen because America can't be the World Police for practical reasons. As long as we recognize that, why don't we recognize it in Iraq?

[Rye]

Of course, I am not seriously arguing that America should go occupy a few African countries. I'm just pointing out that the "we can't leave because bad things might happen if we do" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense because bad things are happening all over the world thanks to a lack of involvement of first-world forces, and we recognize that those things will continue to happen because America can't be the World Police for practical reasons. As long as we recognize that, why don't we recognize it in Iraq?

It's one of those things without a hard and fast rule. I mean, using that argument, we could've left Kosovo and Bosnia alone, would that have been better? I honestly don't know. On the other hand, if we have the ability to intervene and make things better (by deposing a dictator, redistributing food, technology, etc), do we have the responsibility? If we don't have the ability to intervene everywhere, where should we intervene?

Places where there's more of an infrastructure would obviously help, as it did after WW2. Invading Iraq makes much more sense than Africa since it can be rebuilt rather than built totally in the first place.

At the same time, perhaps the majority of Iraq is beyond dealing without resorting to shocking brutality. Perhaps the sensible thing is to protect the kurds and make sure they play it western and secular and subsequently prosper.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's really the Catch-22 that America, or any superpower from Rome to Great Britain, has come across and never satisfactorily solved for all. If you go in and try and depose a dictator, you're seen as meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state that got into the mess by their own actions. If you leave people alone and become isolationist, you get all sorts of abuse over not lifting a finger to use your power to help the people of the world from oppression and so on.

I don't envy any nation that has to deal with that, since it's far easier to be on the sidelines criticising their actions one way or another. Not that any of this absolves the US of responsibility over Iraq and A-stan, which in the former's case at least, was more a resource grab than an act of altruism.

[Darth Raptor]

As long as we're going by the rationale that bad things might happen in a far-off part of the world without a constant American military presence, why not go occupy Africa? That place is a giant shithole, and a failure to occupy Africa is going to lead to as least as much suffering and death as a failure to continue occupying Iraq.

The sticking point is that we've already invaded and occupied Iraq. A move which, by any rational standard, was a disastrous mistake. The argument is not one in favor of unlimited interventionism, but rather that it's our moral responsibility to buy what we've broke, as it were. The cat should have never left the bag, but since it's out, it's our responsibility as the proverbial Pandoras to minimize the damage wrought by our meddling.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, I am not seriously arguing that America should go occupy a few African countries. I'm just pointing out that the "we can't leave because bad things might happen if we do" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense because bad things are happening all over the world thanks to a lack of involvement of first-world forces, and we recognize that those things will continue to happen because America can't be the World Police for practical reasons. As long as we recognize that, why don't we recognize it in Iraq?

It's one of those things without a hard and fast rule. I mean, using that argument, we could've left Kosovo and Bosnia alone, would that have been better? I honestly don't know. On the other hand, if we have the ability to intervene and make things better (by deposing a dictator, redistributing food, technology, etc), do we have the responsibility? If we don't have the ability to intervene everywhere, where should we intervene?

You're almost there; can you see? You can't fall into the trap of thinking that you must run around trying to keep third parties from hurting each other. That doesn't mean you should never do it; it only means that you must not convince yourself that you must do it at all costs.

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're going by the rationale that bad things might happen in a far-off part of the world without a constant American military presence, why not go occupy Africa? That place is a giant shithole, and a failure to occupy Africa is going to lead to as least as much suffering and death as a failure to continue occupying Iraq.

The sticking point is that we've already invaded and occupied Iraq. A move which, by any rational standard, was a disastrous mistake. The argument is not one in favor of unlimited interventionism, but rather that it's our moral responsibility to buy what we've broke, as it were. The cat should have never left the bag, but since it's out, it's our responsibility as the proverbial Pandoras to minimize the damage wrought by our meddling.

Yeah, well, the British occupied Africa and India for far longer than the US has been in Iraq, and both of them still fell apart when they left. The fact of the matter is that a foreign occupying force becomes a significant part of a country; this is virtually indisputable. Therefore, no matter how long that force has been there, there will probably be a major disruption when it leaves.

Now one could theoretically prevent this by very slowly and gradually phasing out one's military presence, but even when post-occupation nations seemed to be initially stable or even prosperous, the psychological after-effects still seem to cause aftershocks eventually.