Iraq adventure is rich in dangerous precedents

[struggle4progress]

<snip> In a system composed of a large number of independent and conflicting wills, uncertain intelligence, deadly weapons, different cultures and no universally recognised and enforceable authority, a prudent morality requires modesty - modesty of ends, of means, and not least of rhetoric. <snip>

Prudence requires that one is often prepared to settle for half a loaf, rather than making the best the enemy of the good. Compromise is usually an intellectual vice, muddle masquerading as tolerance; but, except in the most extreme cases of dealing with outright and threatening evil, it is a political necessity and virtue, especially in conditions in which the alternative is usually a resort to force. <snip>

A prudential ethic requires that, in making policy, discrimination takes precedence over consistency. This is because a country may pursue a number of goals that have moral worth: among them justice, peace, freedom, security, prosperity, stability. Sometimes these compete or conflict and which should be given preference will vary. In other words, judgement is involved, not merely the automatic application of general principles.

It is in terms of such a morality of prudence that I believe that the Bush Administration has seriously failed in Iraq. Its policy has been rich in unintended consequences (a global wave of intense anti-Americanism, the strong opposition of some of America's most important allies, the indefinite tying down of a third of a million military personnel, disgusting images of torture, the killing of large numbers of civilians) and dangerous precedents that may be exploited by others. <snip>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Iraq-adventure-is-rich-in-dangerous-precedents/2005/02/20/1108834654269.html