![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusA friend of mine recently posted a link to this op-ed piece, which made some good points.
I am not necessarily completely anti-interventionist. I generally attempt to eschew extremist ideology altogether and instead look at what actually works, and think about what the actual, as opposed to desired, consequences of an action would be.
Given that, what we really need to do before employing any kind of military power is look at what will work. We have, as the article pointed out, intervened militarily in Iraq repeatedly. And each time we made it worse than it was before - worse for the Iraqi people, and worse for us. So before I'm willing to support any kind of intervention, military or otherwise, I want some questions answered: What are we doing differently this time? What are we hoping to accomplish? And, most importantly, the question that never seems to be asked: On what basis do you believe that these actions will accomplish those objectives?
It's not like we're operating in a vacuum here. We have enough experience, throughout many thousands of years of recorded history, to know that a campaign of destruction is going to lead to widespread suffering and that widespread suffering is going to lead to rise of religious extremism, and that religious extremism is going to lead to terrorism.
So, if we do go back into Iraq, what are we going to do differently this time? And why? Stopping the ISS nutjobs from beheading children is a good goal. But let's do something that would accomplish that goal, rather than just kill a bunch of people and bring in a new batch of even worse religious nutjobs a few years from now.
One part of the article I disagree with their final conclusion:
I don't know if it's safe to actually say that. Iraq is a focal point and breeding ground for radical religious extremism. The worse it gets, the more violence it's going to be exporting. If we can't, or aren't willing to, do anything that won't make things worse, then not doing anything at all might be the best plan. But ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.
So, what do I propose? Well, one idea is to stop funding groups like ISIS. The US simultaneously sells weapons and provides the money to buy the weapons. ISIS funding seems to be coming from two major sources: Saudi billionaires and Afghanistani drug lords. And both those groups get most of their funding from the US. What if we made a massive effort to completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy sources, and also remove the massive profit margins of illegal drugs by stopping the drug war?
Either way, we should probably do something. The problem with a "protect ourselves and let the rest of the world burn" mentality is that we're attached to the rest of the world, so when it burns, we're gonna go with it.
I am not necessarily completely anti-interventionist. I generally attempt to eschew extremist ideology altogether and instead look at what actually works, and think about what the actual, as opposed to desired, consequences of an action would be.
Given that, what we really need to do before employing any kind of military power is look at what will work. We have, as the article pointed out, intervened militarily in Iraq repeatedly. And each time we made it worse than it was before - worse for the Iraqi people, and worse for us. So before I'm willing to support any kind of intervention, military or otherwise, I want some questions answered: What are we doing differently this time? What are we hoping to accomplish? And, most importantly, the question that never seems to be asked: On what basis do you believe that these actions will accomplish those objectives?
It's not like we're operating in a vacuum here. We have enough experience, throughout many thousands of years of recorded history, to know that a campaign of destruction is going to lead to widespread suffering and that widespread suffering is going to lead to rise of religious extremism, and that religious extremism is going to lead to terrorism.
So, if we do go back into Iraq, what are we going to do differently this time? And why? Stopping the ISS nutjobs from beheading children is a good goal. But let's do something that would accomplish that goal, rather than just kill a bunch of people and bring in a new batch of even worse religious nutjobs a few years from now.
One part of the article I disagree with their final conclusion:
There are places on which the very fate of the planet may hinge. But Iraq is not one of those places. It's time to break free of the tar baby and move on.
I don't know if it's safe to actually say that. Iraq is a focal point and breeding ground for radical religious extremism. The worse it gets, the more violence it's going to be exporting. If we can't, or aren't willing to, do anything that won't make things worse, then not doing anything at all might be the best plan. But ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.
So, what do I propose? Well, one idea is to stop funding groups like ISIS. The US simultaneously sells weapons and provides the money to buy the weapons. ISIS funding seems to be coming from two major sources: Saudi billionaires and Afghanistani drug lords. And both those groups get most of their funding from the US. What if we made a massive effort to completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy sources, and also remove the massive profit margins of illegal drugs by stopping the drug war?
Either way, we should probably do something. The problem with a "protect ourselves and let the rest of the world burn" mentality is that we're attached to the rest of the world, so when it burns, we're gonna go with it.
