humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <1b479fe0-fd2b-4e71-aa96-44656fd3c353
@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...
> On Feb 18, 9:25 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > In article >
> > Neither of
> > these interpretations support the invasion of Iraq.  
>
>
> Yes, they do,

No they don't.

> plus Iraq was a criminal state at war with the US since
> 1998. There was already a reason to attack, as Clinton did in 1998,
> accomplishing nothing.

The issue isn't whether we had or needed an excuse to attack, but rather
whether there is a cogent argument that it was a good idea from some
perspective, which, for this discussion, is an egoistic one. Let me
repeat that the gap between what we have a right to do and what is
correct to do is supposed to be bridged by good judgment.

> > First, Iraq had no
> > especially high concentration of jihadists on 9/11,
>
> There was an al-Qaeda training camp,

The camp was in northern Iraq, where Saddam's control no longer extended
due to actions primarily by the U.S. government.

> and AL-Qaeda was extremely well-
> prepared to start an "insurgency" immediately after Saddam's fall.

All the more reason not to ensure Saddam's fall at that time. But,
again, nothing in what you have said marks Iraq a having a particularly
high concentration of jihadists before the U.S.-led invasion. We seem
to have brought out the "best" in them after our arrival, however.

> > and Saddam had the
> > radicals under his boot at no cost to us.  
>
> "Under his boot" could also mean immediately available for him as he
> pleased.

Oh, right, they would certainly have been willing to lick that boot
immediately as it was removed! You will apparently believe any scenario
in which any Muslims will drop all differences and unite against the
U.S. I am wondering, for instance, if you have heard of the terms
"Shia" and "Sunni"? Just curious.

> > Second, we could have better
> > lured jihadists from around the world to Afghanistan.
>
> No, Afghanistan had to be secured as was not done after the Soviets
> were forced out.

Really? So it was better to "secure" Afghanistan rather than lure
jihadists there! I take it your view is that it is easier for us to
kill them in Iraq? If that is so, then we must than God we did not try
it in Afghanistan! Which, by the way, we have not managed to secure,
either.

> I think an unfortunate consequence is that Pakistan
> is well poised to become another Afghanistan, should we not be
> watchful enough. IOW the War is not over until it is over.

IOW, with your strategic insight in charge, the War grows and grows as
we fight it. But, why worry? War is the health of the state, and our
state will be VERY healthy, now that we have grabbed the tar baby firmly
with both hands.

> > > premise (2) : Destroy any regime that can and is willing the help
> > > jihadist terrorists - application - done in under two weeks in Iraq.
> >
> > If you withdraw after the regime collapses, then you are not going to
> > lure jihadists there to attack you, so this premise is at odds with the
> > best interpretation of premise (1).  
>
> Perhaps, but the point is we had to be prepared for several
> possibilities, and Bush/Rumsfeld was not prepared enough for that one.

Yes, well, the problem with a strategy that assumes omnipotence is that
when things don't go your way, you actually have to be omnipotent.
...
> > Unless you stay for more than two weeks - and the
> > amount of time you need to stay appears to be at least five years ;-) -
>
>
> It has always been known that the eventual desirable outcome would
> take years.

Known by whom? Not, e.g., Dick Cheney - unless he is a liar, of course.

> But this is to contrast with VietNam in that, at least, a
> conventional military victory was sought and achieved in a very short
> time.

But a conventional military victory that makes the situation worse is
not really a victory.

> > the Jihadists have a new base of operations free from worries than a
> > jealous dictator will kill them.
> >
> > > premise (3) : Create a regime that is friendly to US interests -
> > > application - convince *actual* Iraqi insurgent patriots that their
> > > interests and the US interests are mutual in (a) ridding their country
> > > of jihadists and (b) restoring Iraqi oil production to full capacity
> > > and (c) regime change in Iran.
> >
> > Well, of course "*actual*" changes everything!  Premise (3) is a "day-
> > dream believer" premise.  
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

> Do you think that any of those M.E. countries
> (including Israel) are shining examples of the sort of country we'd
> like in a political-philosophical sense?

No, but so what?

> It is to be that they sell
> us oil

We used to get it much cheaper before the U.S. invaded Iraq. But we
have done a good job of raising the value of Iranian oil reserves, so
it's not like it was a complete failure from all directions.

> and other commodities at the market price and do not threaten
> war against anybody or support international Islamic terrorism. The
> idea is to start somewhere and why not an already failed, broken state
> like Iraq?

Why not, indeed? Well, how about a trillion dollars? I understand that
you want to defend legitimate spending by government - e.g., defense,
not welfare - but I think an egoist wants not only a legitimate expense
(and here I leave aside the issue of taxation) but a well-chosen one.

--
Gordon