Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Mr. Dreyfuss advises: "Make no mistake: Iraq will be a difficult problem for Obama. Bush has handed him a country still perched on the brink of civil war, and it could flare up again at any moment. If violence grows, Obama may pay a political price, but get out he must."

Given such a startement, what is the logic behind pulling out quickly on a strict timetable, not tied to conditions? If we follow Mr. Drufuss, would civil war not follow? Is our exit at any cost the moral choice for our nation?

We need to finish the job and leave Iraq only when stability is assured. That is precisely our moral obligation.

As Mr. Dreyfuss also noted, most Democrats voted for the war. The majority indeed supported our president early on. Most egregiously, they did it when it seemed politically expedient just before the mid-term elections.

Is the "political price" Mr. Obama may pay if violence increases worth wasting the lives of brave American soldiers?

A premature exit would make Mr. Obama responsible for instability in the region, more violence and more death. Indeed, we may find ourselves back in Iraq under worse conditions.

I find Mr. Dreyfuss's position morally void. I hope our new president reverses his campign rhetoric and takes no heed of such immoral and dangerous nonsense.

Pete Roberts

Mundelein, IL

Nov 16 2008 - 12:43pm

Web Letter

I did not detect any references to the practical consequences of US forces leaving Iraq. An argument for a strict timetable void of such references lacks foundation--saying it should be so because Mr. Obama said so during the campaign could be part of the discussion, but not the entirety. For example, the assertion that such a timetable may force more political compromise in Iraq, while potentially fallacious, is at least substantive.

The suggestion that the new president may have to bring back the generals who helped create Iraq’s initial failure seems only a path to more failure.

Finally, the "blank check" argument ignores that there is an elected government in Iraq negotiating to impose its desire for when American forces leave. This negotiation reflects the interest of the Iraqi people, not American journalists or politicians desirous of pleasing antiwar voters. The president’s job will be to do what's best for the US, and that may mean disappointing both those groups.

John Peterson

Roseville, CA

Nov 15 2008 - 10:55am

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.