I believe that we should not only withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible, but that we should withdraw from every other country in the world where we have troops and close all of our military bases on foreign soil. I am considered by friends and others across the political spectrum to be extremely naïve for these opinions. However, there was a time in our history when many people believed in this VERY strongly, but that time has clearly long since passed.
Specifically for Iraq, even those who claim to be anti-war (and support so-called "anti-war" candidates like Obama**) will respond to me and say "but if we withdraw immediately, Iraq will collapse and be worse off than they are now", which in my mind should be the example sentence for "arrogance" in the dictionary. Who are we to decide what's best for another country? What if another country decided that our President was dangerous and homicidal and invaded and occupied us. We wanted them to leave, but they decided it's better for us if they stay.
If we really believe in "spreading democracy" around the world, here's a radical idea: Let's help Iraq hold a national election. Tally up the votes and see if the people of Iraq want our troops to stay or want us to leave. Perhaps the people of Iraq are willing to accept the risk of possible further collapse in order to have their own country back.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy" -- Mahatma Gandhi
**Here is Obama's Iraq strategy, which basically says he'll withdraw SOME troops in 16 months, then leave some troops behind, maybe forever depending on what happens. And no mention of asking the Iraqi people what they want. And no mention of dozens of other countries where we have troops and military bases. Whatever happened to pacifism in this country?
2 comments:
While I respect your opinion, I don't believe isolationism is the correct move for our current situation. It is essential that America takes action to spread democracy. Also, I feel the need to point out that America has never meen a major Pacifist country. Since the founding of our nation, we have been involved with numerous wars. Think back to WW2, if you will. How do you think the world would have fared if we hadn't intervened? Communism would have taken over, and we may not have had the freedome we enjoy today. This is the same case for Iraq and the Middle East- If we had not intervened, Authoritarianism would have taken over more of the world. This is called the Dominoe Effect, and it is a very relevant reason why America should be involved in worl affairs, and should try to spread democracy, so all of the world can enjoy the freedoms that we do everyday.
It's very important and crucial to understand that isolationism is not the same as non-interventionism. Isolationism means forgetting the rest of the world exists and never helping out if needed. Non-interventionism means not actively intervening in situations just because we feel it's in OUR best interests.
Our country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, actually. It's important to understand this as well in making the argument that you're making. There are important differences between the two forms of government.
I also just generally disagree that we must take action to spread democracy. I think we should set a great example for the world and they can learn from that example and we can help countries achieve that goal if it's what they want. Democracy is not 'good' and everything else is 'evil'. There are many forms of government and it is arrogant of us to 'take action' to 'spread' (usually by force) a form of government that we feel is best for the world.
It's time we take the feelings of other peoples in other countries into account and not assume we know what's best for people.
Post a Comment