1.) While I think China’s extreme rise in purchasing power (It is estimated by some that it will supercede the US by 2010) takes away the US’s position as a “lone super power” as well as the Globalization of industry, the US can not disengage from the world. It is not an economically viable option. Perhaps we need to stop engaging the world as “the lone superpower” and engage it as a brother.

Sorry, no, Geoff, an intelligent discussion is not possible, because there is no common agreement about the factual basis for discussion. What some see as trying to understand the pathologies that have led to the current fiasco, you and others see as partisan bashing. I note also that your points 3.1 and 3.2, which you take as the basis for an intelligent discussion, are disputed assertions already colored by a particular rhetorical tendency (i.e. stating that we have been at war with Iran since 1979). I’m sure you can have a pleasant discussion with those who already agree on these points, but that is a political rather than a religious/LDS community. So no, among Mormons, there is no basis for intelligent discussion. Sorry.

“CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Jonathan, I’m sure you’ll agree that this subject is pretty complex. Any attempt to frame the debate is going to be filled with potential errors. I’m open to you re-framing the debate in different ways. What I simply don’t want is the typical back and forth — Bush is an idiot, no Clinton got us here — that you see in most of these discussions. If you’d like to take a stab at telling my why you don’t agree with my number 3), I’d welcome it. Thanks.

#1, privacy, how would you do what you suggest, ie, engage the world as a brother?

Back to the original topic.

1) I agree the US is the lone superpower. China is hype. US businesses hype China as their new market. A billion people! Yahoo! Never mind China’s economy is somewhere near California’s in size.

2) I think the correct thing to do is pretty broad in this sense. I think it is easy to justify policing the world on the justification of “since we can help we should try”. I think it is easy to justify not policing the world based on “just because we can help doesn’t mean it will help”

3) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad main target seems to be Israel and Zionists. I am all for helping Israel out.

4) I do not think we can ever justify that much destruction in the realm of policing the world.

5) I think any nation where freedom of religion is not a right is fair game. The people are repressed and deserve better. It’s easy to justify “helping” out our fellowman in this case.

I also think it is easy to justify “helping” our fellowman when the rights and treatment of women are below a certain standard.

I think Mormonism benefits more from a stable world, since it allows us to put out more missionaries. How you get stability is an open question.

It’s possible that this means Mormonism benefits more from a USA which maintains peace and the status quo, even at the expense of justice and human rights.

Or it’s possible that propping up repressive regimes simply allows the wound to fester until you’ve got a life-threatening illness on your hands and the totalitarians implode with catastrophic results. Perhaps the USA would be better served to allow small upheavals now rather than face cataclysmic revolutions later. Perhaps Mormonism would benefit as well.

Which is it?

Beats me.

Geoff,
The problem from the very outset of your discussion is that what you see as US “engagement” with the world, many in the world see as imperialistic design. You correctly point out the attacks on US embassies, but fail to point out the huge destruction that the US has wrought on the rest of the world in the same period.

You point out the US embassy takeover in Iran, but fail to recognize the US role in overthrowing a popular government in the 50’s that led to the dreadful reign of the Shah, which Shah, after being overthrown, was sheltered in the US. The US refused extradition of the Shah for his many crimes and murders, which led to the anger in Iran that feuled the embassy takeover. The whole thing started with the US “engagement” in the world from the beginning.

#7 As far as a stable world goes, I agree. However, you need to keep in mind these words from the Lord:

D&C 45:
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.
71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

regarding #5, the answer is “with Tolerance and a willingness to listen to different points of view.” how to pull this off? If I knew that. I’d run for office, we are talking about the five dysfunctions of a Team at an international level.

Geoff,

You can have a good healthy debate about politics.

With this later point, I am referring mostly to the many Islamist attacks on United States assets since 1979 and the U.S. Embassy takeover in Iran. In the 1990s, there were the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole attack and of course Sept. 11. My point is that any argument that says, “let’s disengage from the world and the world will leave us alone” is basically not realistic and certainly ahistorical.

First of all, let’s clear up who attacked who here, because if we are to “know our enemies” then we must be clear on who has attacked us and why. As such, we can respond accordingly and appropriately so we don’t expand destruction and death beyond what is necessary.

The US Embassy bombings in Africa were done by Al-Qaida, not Iran, but the way you phrase your statement, you make it sound like the Iranians are the “Islamists” behind all these attacks. They are not. In fact all three of your examples of the United States being attacked are done by Al-Qaida and not Iran. Why are you attempting to link those attacks to Iran when the evidence does not support such an accusation?

Finally, you bring up the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the taking of hostages at our embassy in Tehran. To understand why they did this, what do you know about Operation Ajax?

2)Given that the United States must be engaged in some way (or will be forced to become engaged), what is the right thing to do from a gospel perspective? What I mean by this is, how can foreign policy be affected by the gospel to do both A) what is right in protecting the United States and B)what is morally right in the short and long term?

The United States, as the world’s superpower must remain engaged with the world around her. What is the right thing to do from a gospel perspective? Well, this gets tricky, because most of our interaction in the Middle East has to do with the shady business of oil. We have some very morally questionable relationships in the Middle East with nations that, well, we probably normally wouldn’t. What is the right thing to do? Stop our support of dictatorships in the Middle East. Stop our support of these very corrupt governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Let the people of each country decide for themselves and let the chips fall where they may. Isn’t that the point of 1) democracies, and 2) life on this earth? For the United States to protect itself well, it must stop aggressive warfare and focus on defensive warfare instead. We have great moral power in diplomacy if we get people on board who know how to use it.

As examples, in the Book of Mormon, you find there are no examples where the righteous Nephites went into Lamanite lands to attempt to overthrow the king simply because they felt threatened by him. Always they waited until the Lamanites attacked, and even then, they never entered Lamanite lands. They simply repelled the Lamanites out of the Nephites’ lands.

3)In the Middle East we face two difficult issues from a strategic and moral standpoint: 1)we are involved in a war in Iraq today where the roll of the United States military is primarily to prevent widespread slaughter and greater death and 2)we are faced with an implacable enemy (Iran) that has openly declared war on us since 1979 that is on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. In the case of 2), even if we don’t believe a Shiite-dominated Iran could fire nuclear weapons on the United States, their acquisition would certainly destabilize the region, causing Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states to feel they also need nuclear weapons.

There are some serious problems here with both Iran and Iraq. First of all, to say that the military is “primarily [there] to prevent widespread slaughter and greater death” while employing the very means that brings about death is a contradiction in terms. We’re killing people in order to prevent killings. Nothing in that makes sense, and there’s your reason why Iraq is so unstable and violent right now. The only solution that will placate the violence in Iraq is a political solution, not a military solution.
Secondly, Iran has not “openly declared war on us since 1979.” Thirdly, they are not “implacable.” In fact, in 2003, they offered quite strong concessions in order to bring about a dialog between their nation and ours. I’m going to get partisan here, but I have to. Bush and Cheney scoffed at that offer, dismissed it, and guess what, two years later Iranians voted for a hardliner. Please be more realistic about the situation with Iran, Geoff. They are not openly at war with us. If they were, well, let’s say that the number of Americans dead would be far higher, the number of Iraqis dead would be far higher, and the number of Iranians dead would be far higher.

On this issue, a question needs to be asked. Do you believe there can be any kind of compromise with Iran? Can the United States compromise any of its positions vis a vis Iran? Because let me tell you right now, if it cannot, then there will never be peace in the Middle East, and the heart of the problem of this lack of peace will not be Iran, but the United States.

4)Recent history has shown us that very often the only thing that brings lasting peace is complete victory over enemies followed by generosity and the buildup of democracy so that the defeated people choose a better route for themselves. I’m thinking specifically here of Germany, Japan and Italy in the post World War II era. I’m also thinking of eastern bloc countries that were involved in a Cold War in which the bad guys lost and the people for the most part chose peace, democracy and capitalism.

That is not a very accurate assessment of recent history over what brings “lasting peace” most especially because, well, the world is not in “lasting peace” and as we know from scriptures, we’re in a phase of “wars and rumors of wars.” But your point 4 is an attempt to justify a “complete victory over enemies,” which is a very intractable and implacable position for one to take, especially one in a position as America is in, as the world’s superpower. When the world’s strongest power advocates “complete victory” over “diplomacy” that nation sends a message to the rest of the world that the best option for all nations to take is “complete victory.” Now, can all nations take this option? No, it is impossible. Two nations at war with each other cannot have “complete victory” over each other (unless you consider the Jaredites’s ending as complete victory, where both sides got each other to finally be well…dead).

As for the Eastern Europe bloc and the Cold War, there was no “complete victory” over the enemy during this period. What brought about peace during the Cold War in Eastern Europe was a peaceful revolution (with the exception of Romania). Where was the “complete victory” you are referring to? All I saw was Reagan and Gorbachev meeting diplomatically to create treaties. This is not “complete victory” but “diplomacy.”

Do not justify total war over an enemy by a lack of understanding of history. This will lead only to your destruction.

5)At the same time, the Book of Mormon shows us that over time the defeat of enemies is only temporary and that the only thing that effects real change is the enemies’ conversion to the Gospel. I’m thinking specifically here of the great missionary efforts by Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah who were able to turn implacable foes like the Lamanites into peace-loving followers of Christ. What, if anything at all, does this example have to do with the modern situation in the Middle East? Is there anything we can learn from that?

The lesson to learn here is that we’ve pushed off any possibility of converting Middle Easterners to the Gospel further away by our military adventures in their countries.

addrax,

1) I agree the US is the lone superpower. China is hype. US businesses hype China as their new market. A billion people! Yahoo! Never mind China’s economy is somewhere near California’s in size.

Was that an attempt to diminish China’s economy? California’s economy is the fifth largest in the world. That’s not a bad position for China’s economy vis a vis their growth. The fact is that China is asserting itself economically in the world in ways that many Americans don’t see.

I think many of the comments that are made here are good in the abstract but difficult to put into practice. How do you deal with tolerance with Iran, which has financed anti-U.S. activities (and, yes, has in effect declared war on the United States) since 1979? One way of doing this is withdrawing from the world as Curtis in #8 and many, many scriptures seem to suggest. But at the same time, withdrawing from the world does not guarantee you won’t be attacked (witness 9/11). And it doesn’t guarantee you will be doing the right thing. For example, is it better to withdraw from the world rather than engage and prevent genocide? You could make a strong argument that the U.S. could have made a “peace” agreement with Japan and Germany in, say, 1938, basically drawing up three spheres of influence — Germany gets Europe and Africa, Japan gets Asia and the U.S. gets the Americas — and Hitler and Tojo would have signed that agreement in a second. But meanwhile the United States stands by and watches millions upon millions to be massacred. Is that the “right” thing to do?

I think if we look at our world today, there are many things that are the right thing to do in terms of foreign policy, and most of them involve engaging the world and shouldering our burden as a superpower. Yes, it means we will have enemies (such as the mullahs of Iran). But it would be even worse to allow the world to fall to pieces around us.

One small point about Iran that I think is fascinating: there are many people today who call for the U.S. to return to a Realpolitik policy in the Middle East and elsewhere because Iraq has been such a disaster. Well, it was Realpolitik that caused us to support the Shah in Iran for so many years. And that brought us the mullahs, who as Curtis points out hate us today. So much for Realpolitik.

Geoff,

I think many of the comments that are made here are good in the abstract but difficult to put into practice. How do you deal with tolerance with Iran, which has financed anti-U.S. activities (and, yes, has in effect declared war on the United States) since 1979?

With your very loose definition of “declared war” I guess the United States “declared open war” on Iran when it overthrew the democratically elected government back in the 1950s, and as such 1979 was just a continuation of our aggressive “war” against Iran from the 1950s.

And just what was that overthrow of a democratically elected government over? Oil of course. British Petroleum, petulant that the Iranians nationalized their oil, complained to the British Prime Minister who went to Eisenhower and said “do this for us.” Eisenhower meekly obeyed and ordered the CIA to overthrow the government.

Geoff one huge problem I have with current government policy in light of the gospel is that we do not negotiate with the very people we are in conflict with. Can that be justified.

Dan, I love the fact that you put so much time and effort and thought into your comments. I can’t possibly respond to all of your points, but I would like to respond to this because it gets to the heart of my post:

“The United States, as the world’s superpower must remain engaged with the world around her. What is the right thing to do from a gospel perspective? Well, this gets tricky, because most of our interaction in the Middle East has to do with the shady business of oil. We have some very morally questionable relationships in the Middle East with nations that, well, we probably normally wouldn’t. What is the right thing to do? Stop our support of dictatorships in the Middle East. Stop our support of these very corrupt governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Let the people of each country decide for themselves and let the chips fall where they may. Isn’t that the point of 1) democracies, and 2) life on this earth? For the United States to protect itself well, it must stop aggressive warfare and focus on defensive warfare instead. We have great moral power in diplomacy if we get people on board who know how to use it.”

I think this is an area where we can even muster up some agreement. In a general sense, I believe in democracy and I believe in letting people decide how to govern themselves. There are a few examples that are worth considering, however. The first is Iran, where there is no doubt the Mullahs were popular in 1979. But of course they started a reign of terror that lasts until today, and of course they canceled any real democracy (in the sense of allowing the people to choose between the Mullahs and a completely different type of government). In 1991, it looked like the FIS, the Islamist group in Algeria, was going to win elections there. In early 1992, the government canceled the elections because there was strong evidence the FIS would turn Algeria into another Iran. And most Western governments (democracies) breathed a sigh of relief. So, in the Middle East, democracy can often go in unexpected directions. I still think you have to allow democracy to flourish and hope that eventually it will work out.

That, by the way, is exactly what Neoconservatives have been arguing for years and the principle reason why I supported the Iraq invasion.

As for defensive vs. offensive wars, I think there is no doubt that the BoM clearly points out that defensive wars are the only acceptable armed conflicts from a moral standpoint. But, if you take that viewpoint to its logical extreme, the United States would only be involved in wars where it was attacked. That would mean, in the 20th century, only attacking Japan (not Germany) and al Qaeda. Remember, we declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. You could argue that our only beef was with Japan. Well, that would have been a bit of a disappointment for the British, the French and certainly Europe’s Jews.

I’m not convinced that in the modern era only defensive wars are justified or morally correct.

Geoff #12
I don’t think that 9/11 happened as a result of, or in a time of US withdrawal from the world. In fact, 9/11 happened at a time when we had our infidel military bases in Saudi Arabia, the Holy land of Islam. We didn’t withdraw our military from that area after the first Gulf War, and I believe that probably has a lot to do with the reason the US is attacked in many instances.

As far as the Realpolitik policy goes, I think that Mossadegh’s plan to nationalize the oil industry had a lot to do with the US sponsored coup against him too.

Clark I’ve read at least one commentator who said the spark that ignited Iran was actually Carter’s withdrawal of support for the Shah on human rights grounds (which he did just prior to the civil unrest that culminated in the overthrow of the Shah).

It’s entirely possible that if the US had not signaled the Shah’s weakness like that, the revolution would have been stillborn, and Iran would have continued on much like Saudi Arabia has - not exactly a model of democracy and enlightened rule, but stable nonetheless.

But who knows for sure?

It occurs to me that I should take some time to explain my point 3 above regarding Iraq.

This partly answers Dan in #10.

Take a step back in Iraq. Put away your Bush/Cheney hatred. Let’s pretend the troops there are French troops sent by Chirac. What will happen when all these Frenchies leave?

Well, they will go back to France and their families will be quite happy to have them back. But what will happen to the people of Iraq?

I think we all can agree it will be a bloodbath. Shiites against Sunnis against Kurds. You can argue that it is all Chirac’s fault for invading Iraq in the first place, but that doesn’t change the actual situation on the ground.

So, speaking purely from a humanitarian/moral perspective, the existence of all these French troops is primarily a police action. They are kind of like Officer Krumpke in “West Side Story” trying to prevent the Sharks and the Jets from going at each other’s throats. And we all know what happened when Officer Krumpke went off duty.

There’s already significant evidence of Iranian and Syrian involvement in Iraq. Each side is arming its favorite thugs. So, what happens in the region when the Frenchies are no longer there? The fighting goes regional, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries could easily get involved. What a mess.

So, regardless of the past, today, “we are involved in a war in Iraq today where the roll of the United States military (ie, French military) is primarily to prevent widespread slaughter and greater death.” That is the point I was trying to make.

Geoff,
Robert Dreyfuss would disagree with you on the violence you predict following a US withdrawal here:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48186/

Also, a quite livid Iraqi has this to say to those who would say we have a responsibility to be there to protect the peace… or kill the killers:

“If the Americans leave, they will take the murderous rabble - see above - they brought with them.

The death squads they trained and implanted in our midst would be hunted down and killed.

Jaafary and Maliki and all the Daawa dogs would be hunted down.

Millions of Iraqis - Shia and Sunni - would descend on Baghdad and rid it of the scum the US planted there.

A period of initial chaos would follow. Then reconciliation.

Then Iraqis would go about fixing what the Americans couldn’t - and not have to steal $18 billion because the US coffers were running empty thanks to the dog in the White House.

Please, withdraw your raping horde of an army.”

I suspect that there is no gospel-based solution to nation-level conflicts. The gospel teaches me that Amedinejad is my brother in exactly the same measure as President Hinckley is my brother, and that I should treat him with the same level of love, respect, compassion, and esteem that I treat President Hinckley. Similarly, the gospel teaches me that I should permit no distinction of race, nationality, gender, or otherwise to interfere with my love, respect, compassion, and esteem for the people you refer to. Finally, as I am to love my neighbor as myself, I should not prefer my own wealth, safety, comfort or security over that of my sisters and brothers in Iran.

As D&C 121 continually reminds us, notions of dominion, retaliation, conquest, defeat, and the like are the notions of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose. Not of God. Until we engage with others on the basis of persuasion, long suffering, kindness, meekness, and love unfeigned, we haven’t any possibility of finding a gospel-based solution to the problems you identify.

Instead, we’re like Mullah Nasruddin in the story:

Nasruddin was found by his neighbor looking in the street for something.
“What are you looking for,” asked the neighbor.
“I’m looking for my key,” said Nasrudin.
“Where did you lose it?”
“In my basement.”
“Then why are you looking for it here?”
“The light is better here.”

Geoff,

#18,

Interesting that you chose the French. We actually have a case of what has happened when the French have withdrawn from a country they attempted to…what’s the best word? Rule? Direct? Colonize? It all comes down to imposing their will upon the locals. And no, the result when they left was not a bloodbath. No, we do not all agree that the result would be a bloodbath. That’s the fear. but fear is not necessarily reality.

So, speaking purely from a humanitarian/moral perspective, the existence of all these French troops is primarily a police action. They are kind of like Officer Krumpke in “West Side Story” trying to prevent the Sharks and the Jets from going at each other’s throats. And we all know what happened when Officer Krumpke went off duty.

Note also that while Officer Krumpke was ever present, the hatred between the Jets and the Sharks never ceased, but it took the death of Tony and Maria’s confrontation of Chino in order to get the two sides to actually work together. Note that the cops failed utterly in their attempts to placate the two sides.

There is a reason why few nations are foolish enough to try to intervene in civil wars.

Seems to me that section 98 of the D&C pretty much says everything that needs to be said on the subject:

11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.
14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.
15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.
16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;

Good luck to all those who will someday find themselves in the unfortunate position of trying to justify to the Lord the decisions they made to take this nation to war and thereby cause the unnecessary deaths and dismemberments of hundreds of thousands of His children, regardless of the nation of their citizenship. Now that the Lord has commanded us to “renounce war”, who are we to argue any kind of justification that would allow us to do the contrary?

I think we all can agree it will be a bloodbath.

What numeric threshold have we not yet achieved so that the daily slaughter already taking place can not be termed a “bloodbath”?

I think Mark N in #22 makes the kind of point that I struggle with every day. I believe we are intended to renounce war and proclaim peace. I certainly try to do that in my personal life. But then we have so many examples in the scriptures of righteous leaders who were also military leaders (Capt Moroni, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, King Benjamin, Moses, Abraham, David and on and on). So, maybe the rule is only that defensive war is justified. Well, then what do you say about WWII in Europe, which was not a defensive war for the United States? Were we correct to fight it or not?

Unfortunately, the real world is much more complex than the pacifist (and I mean that in a good sense because I consider myself a pacifist in many ways) comments here would indicate.

As for whether or not our leaving Iraq would be a bloodbath or not, I would just like to leave a few links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4738472.stm

http://www.slate.com/id/2159936/

I have no crystal ball. It seems to me that I would hope that if we were to leave Iraq right now it would become more peaceful. But I think that history indeed shows the exact opposite. Vietnam and Cambodia are good examples, but there are many others where the evacuation of strong central authority leads to more deaths, and many unnecessary deaths. I wouldn’t like to have that on my conscience either.

And as a follow up to #24, I would like to point out that the United States is engaged in the world whether it wants to be or not. And what I mean by this is that leaving an unstable Iraq does not mean the Iraqi groups will leave the United States alone. Certainly, it might not be a bad idea to leave Iraq to take on the re-born Taliban/al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. But the reality is that an Iraq without a U.S. presence would quickly become another Afghanistan plotting new attacks against the United States. So, we would find ourselves going back to Iraq to pacify new terrorist threats pretty quickly.

The world can be a scary and complicated place sometimes.

Geoff,

So, maybe the rule is only that defensive war is justified. Well, then what do you say about WWII in Europe, which was not a defensive war for the United States? Were we correct to fight it or not?

Actually World War II was a defensive fight. It was not the United States that declared war first on either Germany or Japan. Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on us. Germany, in their pact with Japan, followed suit and declared war on us. We then declared war on both Japan and Germany. As such, they took first blood, and were the aggressors. After that, the war becomes defensive, in that you fight do push your enemy back.

Can, #21, so I can officially note that your position is the United States should not be involved in Darfur or any future Rwanda-type genocide activities because it’s “foolish” to get involved in civil wars?

Call me a naive idealist, but what it seems to me we really lack in foreign policy is more of the golden rule. We don’t respect the rights and opinions of other nations. Our government does much that we think only happens with other governments. We have a long history of doing underhanded things to protect our interests. (i.e. preventing Venezuela from putting down a revolt in Panama by strategic stationing of our Navy.) I could go on and on but I hope you get the point.

Obviously, all countries throughout history have behaved this way to one degree or another. But America has an ideal. I feel like we should know better. Our ideals just make the aggrieved more bitter. Nobody likes hypocrisy. We can be engaged in the world as an example, a good citizen, and then will come respect and admiration.

Previous statement re: globalization are absolutely correct, there can be no isolationism any more. But there certainly can be more of being an upright world citizen. Why is it that are “defense” toward terrorism is always relaxing our standards and ideals. We become the monsters we despise. To be better requires a lot of faith, but it is this faith that building Zion requires.

Geoff,

But the reality is that an Iraq without a U.S. presence would quickly become another Afghanistan plotting new attacks against the United States. So, we would find ourselves going back to Iraq to pacify new terrorist threats pretty quickly.

Again, that’s one take. In fact, Al-Qaida is loving the fact that we’re in Iraq. They get plenty of targets this way. Whether we leave or not, it won’t change the fact that Al-Qaida is coming after us. If we’re no longer in Iraq, they will also no longer be in Iraq. Do you honestly think that Iraqis care for Al-Qaida? They certainly don’t.

What evidence do you have that Iraq will become another Afghanistan? I mean hard evidence.

Geoff,

#27,

Note that in Darfur they are pressing the political resolution, not a military resolution. While plenty of Sudanese are still dying, this process will bring about a longer lasting resolution than if we were to involve ourselves militarily. I believe it is foolish to attempt to use a military to intervene in a civil war.

Geoff,
“But the reality is that an Iraq without a U.S. presence would quickly become another Afghanistan plotting new attacks against the United States. So, we would find ourselves going back to Iraq to pacify new terrorist threats pretty quickly.”

So we have to stay there to keep crushing the new enemies we’ve created? In the process, creating more enemies in ever enlarging circles until we have to crush the whole world?

If we pulled out Iraq and left them to themselves what reason would they have to fight us anymore? The reason for their anger would be gone… except for the destruction of infrastructure, production sharing agreements in the oil industry, hundreds of thousands of extra graves, hugely increased rates of cancer in kids from depleted uranium weapons etc.

Dan, regarding Japan and Germany, please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact#German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

It was not necessarily a given that a Japanese attack on the United States meant Germany was at war with the United States. In fact, there were many U.S. factions who felt that we should only take on Japan. Hitler’s machiavellian plot at one time was to keep the U.S. neutral as long as possible so he could consolidate control of Europe.

This is exactly my point: the United States in theory could have made “peace” in 1938 with Hitler and Togo. But this would not have been the “right” thing to do morally. Peace at all cost is not always the best policy for nation-states to pursue. Sometimes the right thing to do involves intervention to prevent greater bloodshed.

As for your #29, I have no crystal ball. I think we can all imagine what Iraq would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw in, say, January 2008 and concentrate on Afghanistan, for example. My vision of that situation is one constant round of bloodshed with Sunnis against Shiites and Kurds all fighting for control. We know Iran’s terrorist groups are involved in Iraq, and clearly Iran wants a role there. We know different Arab groups are propping up the Sunnis. I think we have a very interesting parallel: Afghanistan after the pullout of the Soviet army. We know what happened there with the Taliban eventually taking control. And of course that led to 9/11. I guess that would be my “hard evidence.”

Again, an Iraqi nearer the situation than us commenters here thinks the following would happen if we left Iraq:

“If the Americans leave, they will take the murderous rabble… they brought with them.

The death squads they trained and implanted in our midst would be hunted down and killed.

Jaafary and Maliki and all the Daawa dogs would be hunted down.

Millions of Iraqis - Shia and Sunni - would descend on Baghdad and rid it of the scum the US planted there.

A period of initial chaos would follow. Then reconciliation.

Then Iraqis would go about fixing what the Americans couldn’t - and not have to steal $18 billion because the US coffers were running empty thanks to the dog in the White House.

Please, withdraw your raping horde of an army.”

Geoff B (#18): Take a step back in Iraq. Put away your Bush/Cheney hatred.

Geoff, one way to “avoid partisanship…and instead try to concentrate on real solutions” (as you suggested in your original post) is to set aside the notion that everyone who disagrees with the current administration’s foreign and military policy is driving around with “F*** BUSH” bumper stickers on their cars.

There are many people in this country, myself among them, who believe that President Bush has taken the wrong step at nearly every turn in the Iraq affair (starting long before the invasion), and passionately wish that we could extricate ourselves from this situation. But those beliefs do not equate to, nor are they based on, “Bush/Chaney hatred.”

So I ask of you, please stop broad-brushing the administration’s critics. It will go a long way toward fostering intelligent discussion on this difficult topic.

Mike, point taken. But I really am not interested in another partisan debate. We’ve seen too many of them on the Bloggernacle and, frankly, they’re boring.

Do you have anything else to add? I’d like to see some suggestions about how we can extricate ourselves from the situation without making it worse or causing the deaths of even more people after we leave. Do you have any of those suggestions?

Geoff,

It was not necessarily a given that a Japanese attack on the United States meant Germany was at war with the United States.

you must have misread my comment, because nowhere in my comment did I say that Germany declared war on the United States because the US attacked Japan. I said that Japan declared war on the United States. Germany then followed suit. Your link confirms that.It was not necessarily a given that a Japanese attack on the United States meant Germany was at war with the United States.

According to the stipulation of the Tripartite Pact, Nazi-Germany was required to come to the defense of her allies only if they were attacked. Since Japan had made the first move and attacked, Germany was not obliged to aid her. Nevertheless, on December 11, Hitler ordered the Reichstag to formally declare war on the United States.

Germany certainly didn’t HAVE to declare war on the United States, as the United States to this point hadn’t done anything to them, nor attacked Japan. Germany CHOSE to declare war against the United States, BEFORE the United States chose to declare war on Germany. As such, Germany was the aggressor.

Hitler’s machiavellian plot at one time was to keep the U.S. neutral as long as possible so he could consolidate control of Europe.

That is an incorrect assessment of history, and the link you provide directly refutes that statement. Hitler made one of the two biggest mistakes in his warring with the world. His biggest mistake was to take the fight to the Soviet Union. His second biggest mistake was this, declaring war on America at a time when America wasn’t even looking to war against Germany.

Peace at all cost is not always the best policy for nation-states to pursue. Sometimes the right thing to do involves intervention to prevent greater bloodshed.

Technically, in 1938, America did not choose to war with Germany, even though Germany began its preparations for war, and as such, does not fit with your assessment of history. The United States did not go to war against Germany for moral reasons. They did not go to war against Germany to stop the onslaught of the Nazi war machine. They went to war against Germany because Germany declared war against them.

I think we can all imagine what Iraq would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw in, say, January 2008 and concentrate on Afghanistan, for example. My vision of that situation is one constant round of bloodshed with Sunnis against Shiites and Kurds all fighting for control. We know Iran’s terrorist groups are involved in Iraq, and clearly Iran wants a role there. We know different Arab groups are propping up the Sunnis. I think we have a very interesting parallel: Afghanistan after the pullout of the Soviet army. We know what happened there with the Taliban eventually taking control. And of course that led to 9/11. I guess that would be my “hard evidence.”

Ah, now that’s getting better. Of course Iran wants a role in Iraq. They are neighbors, and with a Shi’ite majority, Iran definitely wants to make sure Iraq stays close to them. It is very understandable. Is it wrong or evil? Well, I personally don’t think so, but as is very clear, many Americans think that is unacceptable.

The solution in Iraq is political. Breaking down doors with our military will not solve the problem. Pull them back, and get the parties (all the relevant parties—including Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sunni insurgents, Shi’ite militias, and Kurdish leaders) together to talk. As long as America is present in Iraq, however, things will not quiet down. Is there a chance for things getting worse? Of course. Is there a chance of things getting worse with Americans still there? Of course. There is no good option right now. But one thing is clear, the only path that will bring about some kind of resolution, however tenuous is political, not military.

http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

POLL: AMERICANS ‘WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ’
Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.

# By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

# By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.

# Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

Geoff B (#35): Do you have anything else to add? I’d like to see some suggestions about how we can extricate ourselves from the situation without making it worse or causing the deaths of even more people after we leave. Do you have any of those suggestions?

Considering the length and depth of the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis, I don’t hold out any hope for a military solution, and very little for a political one. There are no good solutions, only bad solutions and worse solutions.

If we stay, we remain a catalyst for violence. If we leave suddenly, Iraq (or at least the portions around Baghdad) will descend further into civil war. Either way, people will die and the U.S. will be responsible for their deaths.

My preferred solution is to partition the country into three separate states: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish. This has its own hurdles to overcome, including the relocation of people in mixed communities (although this is already occurring on its own), the reality of the Shiite portion becoming a de facto extension of Iran with control of most of Iraq’s oil fields, and the enormous resistance to a Kurdish state from surrounding countries (most notably our ally Turkey).

If partitioning isn’t possible, then a slow, steady withdrawal that leaves progressively more power in local Iraqi hands is all that we really have left.

addrax (#37):

I doubt that the majority of Americans know the details of what “win in Iraq” means. I strongly doubt George W. Bush knows, either.

Of course no one wants to “lose.” But there is no definable military objective for our troops in Iraq. We can’t “win” unless we set specific conditions that define what “winning” is. (Sorry, Mr. President, but “an Iraq that can sustain itself, defend itself, and serve as an ally in the war on terror” isn’t specific enough.)

I have come to believe that there is no way to “win” in Iraq, and that we should not ask our brave and capable soldiers and Marines to continue to lay down their lives attempting to do what simply cannot be done. The great Wilsonian dream for Iraq will never come to pass, no matter how many troops we deploy.

A comment by Curtis was deleted for violating the M* comments policy. Curtis, I would kindly ask you to avoid quoting from sources like that. I know you think you are showing how “people really feel,” but insulting rhetoric is not what I want on this thread. Thanks.

I would agree with Mike that we’ve done a poor job, just as we did in Vietnam, of defining exactly what “victory” means. It makes it difficult for us to know when we have won and makes our commitment seem open-ended. Having said that, I still think the poll Addrax quotes is quite extraordinary.

Geoff (#41):

Can you define, specifically, what “winning” in Iraq would entail? What exactly must our troops accomplish before we can say “we’ve won; now let’s bring them home”?

I don’t want amorphous concepts here (”a stable, democratic Iraq,” etc.); I want a checklist of definable goals that can be ticked off as they are accomplished.

(Distressingly, I highly doubt such a list even exists on the desks of George W. Bush and Robert Gates.)

Every time I think about Iraq, my thoughts always turn to the cycle of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

Think about how our country was during World War II and shortly thereafter. The nation, for the most part, was a God-fearing nation. We had good, Judeo-Christian values. There was still prayer in school. Honesty and morality were esteemed, not denigrated. And we kicked buttz.

Then, the 60’s happened. Traditional morals were replaced by free love, prolific drugs, and political corruption. We got our buttz kicked in Vietnam.

Then there’s today. In many ways, today’s America makes the 60’s and 70’s look like "Leave it to Beaver." The systematic removal of God from society, s3x on TV, pr0nography proliferating on the Internet, predators on MySpace - just listen to the ceaseless words of caution emanating from the pulpit during General Conference. If the trend continues, I can’t help but think we’ll have our buttz handed to us on a platter when Iran and Iraq are all over with.

So, I’ve come to the conclusion that the right course of action abroad is to first focus domestically on a return to the values our nation was founded on. If we don’t, the Lord will make sure that our enemies will give us a reason to. And if we keep progressing down the road we are, that’s exactly what the Iran/Iraq conflict will degenerate into.

Also, the words of the Savior in 3 Ne. 14: 3-5 come to mind:

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye - and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

“Think about how our country was during World War II and shortly thereafter. The nation, for the most part, was a God-fearing nation. We had good, Judeo-Christian values. There was still prayer in school. Honesty and morality were esteemed, not denigrated. And we kicked buttz.”

Of course there were those nasty neglected things like abject poverty, out of control racism. (Look at how Blacks were treated not to mention Japanese internment) There weren’t checks on the police who regularly engaged in what today we’d call torture. Most major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago etc.) were corrupt in a way that today we see in places like Mexico city.

The rose colored glasses tend to neglect failures of the American ideal that arguably were far worse than prayer in school. (After all the Klansmen hanging African Americans up with the protection of the community were “good god-fearing people” according to the standard you put up.

I think you neglect just how much progress we’ve made as a nation. We tend to have a myopia about our failures (and I agree on much of the bad from the 60’s) and neglect our successes.

Frankly I’d not want to live in 1948 America.

Well how about this?

Suppose our military quagmire in Iraq is leeching away our military and diplomatic leverage in the Pacific Rim. As we continue to chase the snake that bit us in the Middle East, the major powers of the Pacific Rim: China, Japan, Russia, Korea, all start to eye each other with increasing suspicion. Japan and China enter a state of cold war and arms race, possibly with Japan developing a nuclear arsenal. Sino-Russo relations deteriorate as well with increasing potential for violence.

How many regions of LDS proselyting might be lost in such a deterioration of Americas policing role?

But I should note that a collapse of American hegemony need not be fatal to Mormonism.

After all, St. Augustine and others were facing the same sort of uncertainties as Rome was in decline. The leadership of Christianity at the time was incredibly concerned about the fate of Christianity without a Rome to guide it.

Yet Roman Catholicism did manage to break free of reliance on Rome and make inroads with the surrounding barbarian kings.

Perhaps Mormonism could do the same?

Or are we, frankly, too dependent on our American benefactor to make the shift?

Clark,

#44,

Frankly I’d not want to live in 1948 America.

hear! hear! Maybe some should go back and live then to see just how much better life is now. We really are in the best of times and the worst of times, with the best of people and the worst of people.

I am amazed at the defeatist attitude in our country. If anything, we should learn from such failures as Vietnam (which was really a political debacle) that we will only “lose” if we run away–not to mention the horrific aftermath that would follow our withdraw as in the case of Vietnam.

Shame on you lefties. I thought you valued foriegn lives as much as American lives. Will you shout victory like the antiwarmongers during Vietnam who were happy when our boys finally came home but didn’t give a damn about the fall of Saigon?

The Swiss aren’t single-handedly responsible for the security and well-being of half the globe either. And they never have been. They’ve managed to stay neutral not primarily because they’re highly moral, but because frankly, no one cares what they do. Same with Hong Kong, Dubai and Sweden.

If the US behaved as Switzerland, it would be a massive humanitarian and political disaster for the entire globe.

Jack, the defeatist attitude is probably because we’ve been defeated. Kind of odd how that works out. You conveniently forget that Nixon won election by promising to end the war. It wasn’t just “lefties,” who pulled out - everyone was calling for withdrawl. That the left lost Vietnam is one of the right-wing political myths in America.

And Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated they are every bit as capable as Democrats of not giving a damn when governments are overthrown and people are killed in droves. This has been demonstrated countless times throughout the 20th century.

No one cared about the fall of Saigon because, frankly, it didn’t make one bit of difference to America’s real global interests.

Looks like Jack didn’t follow the guidelines for this post and fell into traditional partisanship. Com’on Jack, are you up for a real debate, or you do want to continue acting like a 12 year old

As for defensive vs. offensive wars, I think there is no doubt that the BoM clearly points out that defensive wars are the only acceptable armed conflicts from a moral standpoint. But, if you take that viewpoint to its logical extreme, the United States would only be involved in wars where it was attacked.

The catch is that our US military over the last 20 years has been designed for just that. We don’t have a standing military capable of the more aggressive actions that Geoff and the neocons are arguing for.

My brother is currently serving in Iraq. It’s his third deployment in the last five years. If he makes it home physically (he will never be the same emotionally), then he will be unemployed. There are some state and federal laws to protect reservists’ jobs, but they never anticipated that kind of burden, and thus most soldiers have no right to sue.

When my brother signed up to serve if needed, the wording in his contract states that it would be for the defense of his country. Not for an aggressive incursion from a president who lied to the American public.

If neocons want to play cowboy around the world, they will have to cough up the money, and that certainly means cancelling tax cuts.

And please let’s also consider the morality of the US government’s stand toward its reservists, which I find to be in breach of contract and not living up to its word.