Help me figure this out.....

[Narkos]

I have an old friend from high school who is stationed in Baghdad attached to the embassy as a FSO. Can't really tell what the guy's politics are, but he posted an article about us getting out of Iraq in 2011,and I replied "Sweet!". His comment was "What will Obama or McCain do? Bush is giving them plenty of options -- except for one. He's "binding" the next President to withdraw combat forces from Iraq. ". I detected a bit of the 'ol White Man's Burden in there, so I retorted with:

"Well, Bush put our foreign policy in a bind when he chose to use the spread of "democracy" and "freedom" as a casus belli once WMD's weren't found. Kind of hard to argue with a sovereign government when they want you out of the country. Freedom for Iraq means less flexibility for us, but according to the Bush administration, the freedom to kick us out was the whole point. Or was it?"

and this was his reply:
"Americans like to spread liberal Wilsonian democracy. Freedom is good, right? We don't like to wage war for some tainted reason including vital US interests. We want to be the good guys. We prefer to wage war for someone else's freedom -- for the other guys' national interests. Does that sound absurd?"

Am I missing something here? We've established a democracy in Iraq,and the Iraqis are exercising their freedom by kicking us the hell out. This guy's attitude is, who gives a shit what the Iraqis say or want. We should stay as long as we like, but remember, we're the good guys. WTF? I'm sensing a little cognitive dissonance here, but I wanted to get a second opinion cuz this guy is Harvard educated.

[Frances]

1. I remember talking with a student way back when the war

in Vietnam was just heating up. This young man was all for our fighting in Vietnam to "free" the Vietnamese.

Neither he nor I knew anything about Vietnam's colonial history.

I had read, however, how the Communist Vietnamese were torturing the non-Communist Vietnamese.

I argued that I hated Communism. I hated that there was torture. I wanted the torture to stop.

BUT, I said that the people who should stop the spread of Communism and the torture were the Vietnamese themselves.

I remembered what a high price those Americans who had seen combat in World War II had paid: nightmares, drinking, trouble realating to spouses and children. I thought these men were heroes who had fought in a war where the U.S. had no choice but to fight. I admired the men greatly, but they would have to live with the effects of war for the rest of their lives.

I argued that Americans should only fight in unavoidable wars. I did not want this student's generation to have to bear the scars of combat unless absolutely necessary.

Of course, the U.S. did send thousands of our young Americans to that war. And, of course, they paid a price that was too high for the results.

[Narkos]

5. You'd think he'd be well versed in the Vietnam fiasco, but guess not....

totally agree with you reasoning

[iamahaingttta]

2. Even Harvard educated people can be stupid dolts.

"We" invaded Iraq to steal the fucking oil.
End of fucking story.
We have this enduring national mythology based largely on what we did during WWII, and there are still idiots in this country who believe that "we" can do no wrong.

"We" invaded Iraq to steal the fucking oil.
End of fucking story...

[Narkos]

6. Continually amazed that very smart people can be taken in by slogans

[Newshues]

3. I think

and I have no relationship with the guy other than what you present here, that his point is "Why should we be the good guys at all?" Aren't our own interests enough for the US to engage in a war - maybe not this particular war but as a general philosophy. Why can't the US just say "You know what, we're not doing this to be nice, to be the good guys or even to help anyone but ourselves"

dripping with sarcasm is how I read it. It's actually a good question that might keep us out of some wars - If we only went to war for our own vital interests the American public wouldn't support so many wars. Instead the American public would more likely, IMHO, choose sacrifice of the interest over war.

Again, not knowing this guy from anything other than you present here, my take is that he has some pretty hot burning frustrations that he needs to talk about but doesn't have the liberty to where he is. Take him up on it. Engage him in a more philosophical discussion on war, particularly the reasons for it. Ask questions, listen, and nudge along.

I'm off to go eat a huge grain of salt but there is my take for what it is worth.

[Narkos]

7. I thought about that....I think I may have pissed him off, but

you're right, I should engage him a bit more cicumspectly. My message was a little rantish, probably not the best way to start a conversation. I'm so frustrated with how things are going (with everything), it's been hard for me to tolerate ignorance.

[Kokonoe]

4. His reply is a reflection of people around him

Bush must have complete control of his information.
We know Obama wants us out tomorrow if we can save face.
McCain wants it to last 100 years regardless of the realities.
Its up for Cindy to decide.

[Frances]

8. In another post, I said that an article on Huff Post

argues that McCain, like his father, thinks the U.S. should be an empire like Britain.

And Obama, because of his father and grandfather, knows colonies from the colonists' viewpoint.

So, McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Obama wants Iraqis to control their destiny.

[Kokonoe]

9. I believe most of what we are is from genetics

We can fight our dna or go along for the ride.
How great it must feel to survive five jet crashes.