Skip to main content

In defense of American troops remaining in Iraq

I listened intently to the sermon on sunday about the war in Iraq. The sermon was excellent and it really did make me think. It helped make me realize it is time for me to write down my thoughts on this war. I’ve not been outspoken in my position in part because I have seen my fellow left wingers go from divided about Iraq to united against it. I tend to vocalize more what unites me with people rather than what divides us. And Iraq can be divisive. Nevertheless, here goes.

Human rights as the center of foreign policy

I am a believer in human rights as a pillar of good foreign policy. This is not to say I am a pacifist. Just as standing up to a bully may require violence, so does aggressively defending human beings from the brutality of dictatorships. When a murderer gets into power, I believe that doing nothing is actively protecting their power.

Here are examples of major human rights violations in this century. What is the Christian thing to do when faced with them? How do we act knowing we are our brother’s keeper?

  • Armenia 1915-1918
  • Russia 1930s
  • Nazi Germany 1940s
  • Cambodia, late 1970s
  • Rwanda 1994
  • Bosnia 1990s
  • Iraq under Saddam Hussein 1980s-90s
  • Sudan 2000s


In each case, brutal regimes acted in outrageous ways to murder many people. In some cases, the desire for peace caused muddled action or inaction. In other cases, military action was taken to end genocide. Non violent social action is not an effective weapon against these evils. I criticized president Clinton for not acting in Rwanda. I supported his effort to end genocide in Bosnia. And I supported the effort to remove Saddam Hussein.

Military action to get Saddam Hussein was good

I have no doubt that had the Americans not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power and his brutality on the Iraqi people would continue. Many thousands of people would have been killed in order to retain his power.

I have heard people say that if we avoided the current war, the Iraqi people would not suffer and die in the numbers they are now. To this I reply - what if we had taken out Saddam before the Iran-Iraq war? How many hundreds of thousands of lives would we have saved if we had taken a stand against brutal dictatorship and prevented that war?

I also believe it is probable that Saddam, had he stayed in power, would have started another war with his neighbors. Regimes like his don't stay peaceful long. How many lives have we saved by preventing Saddam’s next war?

And - most importantly - how many lives might we save if would-be dictators think twice about their actions knowing that the world may intervene in defense of human rights?

The action to remove Saddam was a good step in defense of human rights.

Why I don’t support the president

Of course it is obvious that human rights is not the center of the current president’s foreign policy. One need only point out the lack of accountability for the Abu Ghraib atrocities to see this as fact.

I am in the awkward position of agreeing that Saddam should have been taken out, but not supporting the policies of this president who ordered the invasion. (I am joined by people such as reporter Tom Friedman in this awkward position.) I believe the president lied to me about the WMD evidence. I believe he lied to me about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I believe he lied to me about the connection between Iraq and 9/11. And when I had criticisms of his incompetent preparation and execution of the war, he called me unpatriotic.

I am not writing to defend a liar. I am writing because I believe our troops should not leave Iraq. The human rights situation will become much worse if we let the civil war rage and stand by while slaughter occurs. Will we not feel the need to intervene if the carnage in Iraq becomes genocide in a civil war gone out of control?

We should remain in Iraq not because of the president, but in spite of his incompetence. I wish he would visit every major world leader on bended knee asking for help in stabilizing Iraq.

How can military force be a moral defense of human rights?

Using violence in defense of human rights is the great moral hazard of my argument. I understand this and don't shy away from it. It is a very high risk and is fraught with peril.

However, one can frame the question more in terms of standing up to injustice. Non-violence is a key tool to use. But it is not the only tool available. When standing up to vicious dictatorships, violence will happen regardless. The only question is what we are willing to do about it.

Are we the world's policemen?

If we are to intervene militarily as I suggest, are we going to get involved in every terrible conflict in the world? No, that is just not possible. But because we cannot do everything does not mean we should do nothing. Because we will certainly make mistakes and misunderstand doesn't mean we should not try. We are our brother’s keeper and I support our continued military presence in Iraq.