The Virtues of an Iraqi Civil War (April 17, 2006)
The United States was not required to engage in a domestic dispute war in 1860. The Union forces could have prevented the expansion of slavery in the West by establishing garrisons along the border between the slave-holding states and the frontier. The Navy could have embargoed trade with the South on the seas to the east and in the area now known as the Gulf of Mexico while also protecting other legitimate commerce and asserting the young nation’s sovereignty. The South would have withered in a dozen years rather than being obliterated in four. However, a President really only has the four-year term to resolve the matter. The Union elected to “destroy the village in order to save it.” A civil war defines a people. The War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression or however it is described is one of the major events that defined America and its people. There are some who are still fighting the conflict.
“Over values men will fight.” This rallying cry was shouted not by Ernesto “Che” Guevara but by Milton “Free Market” Friedman, the great contemporary conservative economist and philosopher. The peoples in the present country of Iraq may elect to fight to determine their borders, their identities and their values. There may be many deaths. Men fighting over values often kill. The killing is often unfair, random, ruthless, and indiscriminate. The men kill far too many women and children. The tumult is spreading over the region. The Shiites in Iraq may ally with the Shiites in Iran. Others may join the fray. The United States can only make the situation worse.
The Iraqi peoples need to determine their destiny without American involvement and meddling. The United States should not play policeman or baby sitter. The Iraqi people must determine their fate. Support our troops . . . return . . . now.
e-commentary 
Leave a Reply