The War in Iraq: Should We Stay or Leave - Essay Example

The War in Iraq: Should We Stay or Leave The War in Iraq is a divisive issue. Let's look at two articles discussing what America should do next in Iraq. "Why We Must Stay in Iraq" is written by military historian Victor Hanson. "Time to Leave" is written by economist Paul Krugman. Let's look at how each writer uses history and third-party opinions to support his case. Then let's answer the question: "Should we go or should we stay"Both articles draw on American history to make their case, but Krugman less so.

Krugman briefly alludes to the Vietnam War in writing we are in "increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's" (Krugman A23). Hanson relies almost exclusively on history, no doubt because of his background as a historian. He also writes about the Vietnam War but advises, "[] make no mistake, Iraq is not like Vietnam, and it must not end like Vietnam" (Hanson B01). He recalls that we have an all-volunteer army, unlike the conscription army of Vietnam.

He warns that leaving Iraq now would moralize America's enemies in the area, which happened after the Vietnam War. Krugman doesn't mention WWII, but Hanson does so extensively. He compares the increase of Islamic terrorists in Iraq to the increase of Nazis in Germany during the war. He says America can reverse this trend through force as it did in Germany. He discusses the success of reconstruction in Italy, Germany, and Japan, which may be achieved in Iraq through perseverance.Both men mention public opinion to support their case, but Krugman more so.

Krugman writes, "a solid majority of Americans now believe that we were misled into war" (Krugman A23) and that we can now have serious discussions about Iraq since "the public has realized the truth about the past" (Krugman A23). Hanson, however, discredits public opinion. He writes that "the New York Times recently deplored the public's ignorance of American heroes in Iraq" (Hanson B01). He blames the media for the public's lack of interest and calls on the Bush administration to give the public detailed accounts of "why we are winning" (Hanson B01).

More compelling, however, are both writers' references to the opinions of military heroes to justify their own cases. Hanson concludes his article with a moving eulogy delivered by Lt. Col. Kurilla, an officer with some military successes who, himself, was recently seriously wounded. The eulogy gives voice to the view held by many in the military that this war is necessary to defend freedom and to keep the terrorism out of "our own backyard" (Hanson B01). Krugman, on the other hand, bases the lion's share of his article on the views of Representative John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who recently delivered a speech to Congress denouncing the War in Iraq.

Krugman mentions how Murtha, who "cares deeply about America's fighting men and women," argues that our continued presence in Iraq will destroy our military, undermine America's moral authority, and possibly lead to civil war in Iraq (Krugman A23). Since the printing of the article, the last point has proven to be true.So should we stay or leave Both writers make strong arguments, but they also make serious errors. Krugman should have used historical references to his advantage. There are plenty for him to choose from, which I'll discuss shortly.

Hanson, however, distorted history. He uses WWII as justification for high casualty rates, but conveniently forgets that the situation was far more promising after Midway and Normandy (six months and three years after our entry into the war) than can be said after three years in Iraq. This error weakens his argument. He goes on to cite the successful reconstructions of Germany, Italy, and Japan, but forgot the disastrous reconstruction of the American South (which many call "America's Second Civil War").

He also forgot about the deadly Philippine Insurrection after the Spanish-American War, during which Mark Twain severely criticized America's continued military activities in the newly independent island nation. Of the two writers, Hanson definitely makes the weaker case. He is delusional when he suggests that the "infighting among the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis [] is precisely because Saddam Hussein pitted the sects against each other" (Hanson A23). These are deep-rooted, centuries-old, ethnic conflicts that continue to play out in other countries, like Turkey and Iran, which were never under Saddam Hussein's control.

His distortion and selective omission of history work to his discredit. Murtha (and by extension Krugman) makes a stronger case. Murtha has a better grasp of what's happening in Iraq as is evident when he stated that our presence in Iraq could lead to civil war. Murtha's suggestion that this war undermines America's moral authority is right in line with Mark Twain's wisdom regarding the Philippines. It's time to cut our losses and bring our troops home. Only then can we begin the arduous journey back to the moral roots our founding fathers' experiment in democracy.

Cited WorksHanson, Victor Davis. "Why We Must Stay in Iraq." The Washington Post 4 September 2005: B01. "John Murtha." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 23 Mar. 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 16 Mar. 2006 .Krugman, Paul. "Time to Leave." The New York Times 21 November 2005: A23."Mark Twain, the Greatest American Humorist, Returning Home." New York World 6 October 1900. 23 Mar 2006 .