I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.
Whatever military action we take should be based strictly on our own interests, not any interest in “nation building,” or in establishing “human rights” in other countries. That’s not to say that “nation building” may not sometimes be in our own interest.
But, I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because we needed to make an example of those countries so that other Muslim governments would not harbor AQ or similar terrorist organizations. Any improvement in civil rights was, to me, just a collateral benefit and a nice PR talking point. But, by themselves, they would never have justified military action. There are too many “human rights” violations in too many places in the world. We can’t cure them all.
And yes, individual Iraquis want to be “free.” But, they established an Islamic government, didn’t they? So, they weren’t willing to allow the same freedom to non-Muslim minorities.
I think it is a huge conundrum.
Absolutely agree. There should be no invasion of any country anywhere that does not support our safety and our sovereignty.
But, I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because we needed to make an example of those countries so that other Muslim governments would not harbor AQ or similar terrorist organizations. Any improvement in civil rights was, to me, just a collateral benefit and a nice PR talking point. But, by themselves, they would never have justified military action. There are too many “human rights” violations in too many places in the world. We can’t cure them all.
Absolutely agree here as well. But following the removal of the despotic regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a necessity to help them replace those governments with better ones (as we did in Germany and Japan). An invasion of Iran, should it ever occur (certainly it won't under this pansy we have in the WH now who supports dictators), must be predicated on our own national security. It's fairly obvious that Iran is a national security threat to us under its current regime, but any invasion should certainly be carefully considered, and IMO, bombing nuclear facilities is a more viable option anyway.
And yes, individual Iraquis want to be “free.” But, they established an Islamic government, didn’t they? So, they weren’t willing to allow the same freedom to non-Muslim minorities.
The government currently operating in Iraq is not the problem for the non-Muslims within the country as much as the violent groups still terrorizing anyone and everyone are. Christians are allowed to worship in Iraq (and many do), but the problem of persecution is still very real. I'm not sure, however, that that is an argument against our helping create a democracy in that country. It is a step beyond basic democracy that they, now a sovereign and free country, must take themselves. Afghanistan is even stickier, but it would be tough to argue that what they have now is not better than what they had under Taliban rule.
I think it is a huge conundrum
It certainly is. But removing the possibility of stepping in militarily to remove Muslim regimes just because "Muslims don't want freedom" (with which I continue to strongly disagree), just doesn't seem to be an option.