"The Trouble with Moral Clarity" (Updated)

UPDATE II: Geov Parrish sent me this comment:

There's a lot of evidence that the American presence is in an of itself making things worse. McGovern's plan - apologize for the invasion, full withdrawal, no bases, no oil laws, and pay for a Muslim internnational peacekeeping force - seems to me to make the most sense. Bush/Cheney would never consider it, of course, but neither will any of the leading Dems, which is pretty damn discouraging.

UPDATE: Howie Opinion--I think I'll put myself in with the Postman-Shue option. As dinazina commented to me:

What evidence does Baird have that Bush & Cheney (they are controlling everything, after all) will do ANYTHING decent, moral, or constructive for the people in Iraq?

David Sirota seems to agree.

switzerblog (Evergreen Politics):

So I'll be the 38th blogger to weigh in on Brian Baird's "change of heart" concerning Iraq. Since voting for a bill containing a timetable for troop withdrawal, he's visited Iraq and decided he can no longer support such an idea. Truth be told, of course, his heart didn't have to go far; he was reluctant to vote for the withdrawal amendment in the first place.

He didn't like it, and after visiting Iraq andTardy Howie Opinion: I think Postman-Shue combo seems about right. dinazina commented to me, "What evidence does Baird have that Bush & Cheney (they are controlling everything, after all) will do ANYTHING decent, moral, or constructive for the people i seeing the changes (progress? I don't know) brought about in the situation after the "surge", decided he just couldn't do it again. Baird's view on things?

"We have a moral responsibility to try to help these people whose lives we have impacted."

and

"It seems to me the threat of withdrawal is not such a clean instrument and may be counter-productive."

Something of a "we broke it, we bought it" view, one I've argued against, but not entirely unreasonable. It's important to remember that Baird voted against the war in Iraq and would do so again today, but his view is that we have to deal with the situation as it is right now. The interesting part of what he says, though, is his suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to the people of Iraq.

Much is made about moral responsibility regarding Iraq - many on the left view it as a moral imperative that we get out of Iraq immediately or as close to it as possible, while many on the right view it as equally morally necessary that we stay and "finish the job". Both see themselves having moral clarity and the other side lacking moral standing altogether. But is that true?

Where do we all stand on Iraq? All rhetoric aside, are the bulk of people that far apart? Is Brian Baird that far out of touch with morality, with his constituents, with Americans? Are we? I think if you strip away the rhetoric, you'll find that, aside from cranks on both sides who advocate extreme solutions, right and left aren't arguing over goals as much as methods, and while that's a heated discussion, ultimately the morality of the discussion is inherently vague.

• A moral case can be made that we have brought physical, emotional and financial ruin on Iraq, and must correct this abhorrent situation before we move ourselves out of their world (let's call this the Baird imperative for today).
• Another moral case can be made that we have brought physical, emotional and financial ruin on Iraq, and must correct this by moving ourselves out of their world (let's call this the...Postman imperative, for lack of a better term).
• A case can be made that there are horrible people in Iraq just waiting to pounce, first on Iraqis, then on us, as soon as we leave, and therefore we must stay and pacify them (Lieberman imperative).
• A case can be made that there are horrible people doing horrible things in Iraq and we have to leave quickly so the Iraqis can roust these troublemakers out on their own (I'll call this the Shue imperative, although it doesn't map directly to Mr. Shue's own stance. His vocal advocacy deserves its own imperative).
• And a case can be made, popularly in our own Northwest, that we have a moral need to get our own children, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, out of Iraq and prevent further loss of American life (we'll call this the Sheehan imperative).

These are, of course, simplified and do not include variants and combinations, but I think this is a good outline of the root mainstream belief structures about Iraq in American discourse today. I do not include end-of-the-spectrum ideas intentionally.

Each of these cases has polls, proof points, Iraqi and American voices, troops on the ground, and logical strength behind them. Each has moral weight, and each provides its own moral clarity. The nature of such things is such that there exists a ready-made blockage to any other idea. I see a moral issue. I have moral clarity on that issue. If you disagree on any point, you are wrong, and therefore immoral. There is no need to debate an immoral person. And that, my soon to be leaving angry comments readers, is the trouble with moral clarity.

We cannot change Baird's mind, nor he ours, for each stands in moral opposition despite each wanting to get our troops out and see a stable, safe, self-governing Iraq. Many will, I'm sure, condemn his moral failure and support of the Bush ideas for Iraq (indeed, at the Slog, a commenter has already pondered where Baird intends to find "more people to sign up to be Darth Cheney's Imperial Stormtroopers", as though this were Baird's hope or plan). War supporters will trumpet Baird's moral conversion and the imminent collapse of Democratic unity on the issue. But what will not happen, in the house down the street or any Congressional meeting room, is a meeting to discuss what can and should really be done.

Originally, the argument on Iraq was "Go or Don't Go". It became "Stay or Leave", and now that "Stay" has lost, the argument should be "When do we Leave". Unfortunately, moral clarity has intruded, and we waste time claiming that Baird wants permanent occupation, or Kucinich wants to abandon our troops, or someone else wants to abandon Iraqis...all nonsense, all ultimately irrelevant, and all distracting from any possible solution.

We must drop this moral clarity and seek answers. Moral clarity has led too many politicians to find the answers they've wanted - Republicans (and Joe L) visit Iraq and find progress, troops who embrace the mission, high morale, while Democrats visit Iraq and find chaos, death, danger and troops lost in hopelessness. Pre-screened audiences and carefully designed routes provide cover. But why are we lost in these one-answer mazes? Why do we spend tax dollars on these Iraqi campaign ads? Would it not be more fruitful to bring John Murtha and Brian Baird and Lieberman and John Thune together in Iraq to meet with all manner of troops? To simply listen to their feedback? To meet with Iraqis in secure neighborhoods, as well as those not secure? Sunnis and Shias?

But this won't happen, because we've lost our way. We're blinded by our moral clarity, unable to seek further answers or ask better questions, and in the chokehold of the madmen in charge, run by their own moral clarity which drags us all down with them. I'm sick of moral clarity. I want questions and doubt. We don't know what will happen when we leave Iraq; we don't know if we're better off staying or leaving. We don't know if it's making us safer or not. And we can't admit we don't know because we no longer doubt, we no longer question, and we no longer talk.

I disagree with Brian Baird, based on what knowledge and understanding of the situation I have. But I have to listen to him because I don't know the answer. Until our leaders - Republican and Democrat - take that one small step back and decide that they don't know the answer, they'll just keep asking the wrong questions, and these short-term Congressional battles will continue to resolve nothing, letting the very real war continue with lethal results and no way out.

Our moral clarity is creating a moral vacuum around Iraq, and in the end may be the biggest moral failure of all.