The Moral Obligation to Lose The War

By Robert Shetterly

05/12/07 "Common Dreams' -- -- Every act has moral and immoral potential. The girl scout who helps an unsteady old man across the street could also have pushed him aside. The aftermath of each action engenders a new range of moral possibilities. Having pushed him aside, she might then regret her act and return to help him. Even when we’ve made bad choices, acted out of indifference or greed rather than compassion and generosity, another choice awaits us: how to compound or rectify the immoral act, stay the course or imagine how to salvage some measure of moral standing. Since even a racist like George Wallace can have a Road to Damascus experience, anything is possible.

The immense immorality of the choice to attack Iraq, and base that choice in lies, propaganda, and fear is hardly news now. But the fact that, above all else, it was a moral choice means that another moral choice is possible. And only one choice would atone for the original.

This war will not end until the funding is cut off. Anyone who would continue the funding to “support the troops,” should also tell you that once you make a moral mistake, keep making it, and that those who pay with their blood for your mistake are grateful for the support. The logic of this position would also maintain that policy is made by soldiers and officers, not by the people, the Congress and the President.

None of the offered plans now before us to de-escalate the war disavow what we all know to be its original goals — control of Iraq’s oil and the building of large, permanent US military bases in Iraq. Nor do any of these bills address the central issue of accountability, the fact that this war is a war crime, a crime against our democracy, our Constitution, the Iraqi people, international law, and our own soldiers. Without accountability, our democracy is meaningless. Without moral action, our claim to integrity and respect are meaningless.....LINK