When asked to tell us what we actually need to do, rather than tell us what we all need to believe, ideologues on the Far Left and Far Right are uncharacteristically silent.

Both Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul want the U.S. to get out of Iraq.  Granted, their reasoning differs.  Pelosi, who believes that Iraq is a “situation to be managed,” not an actual war, withholds her support to discredit the Bush Administration and thus help her political party at the ballot box.  Paul’s opposition is based on his belief that the Iraq invasion is an unconstitutional exercise of power, in addition to being the wrong policy in the first place.

Both the Paul and Pelosi camps embrace the same four-word prescription we’ve heard over and over to give concrete political meaning to their beliefs: “Get out of Iraq”.  When I noted in an earlier essay (“Whose Crazier, the Far Left or the Far Right?”) that the bottom line for the ideological Right and ideological Left is identical regarding the issue of Iraq, I was told that their underlying motivations mattered, and therein lay the difference.

Okay.  If the reason why Leftist ideologues want to “Get out of Iraq” is different than the reason why Right-minded ideologues want to “Get out of Iraq” — and this difference indeed matters — then let’s look at the practical policy prescriptions each offers, and the practical political consequences of each path.  The proof should be in this pudding; that is, assuming that the pudding actually exists after all is said and done.

But first, let’s examine their respective reasoning and motivations.

First the Uber-Left:  Once you cut through all the “Bush Lied People Died” rhetoric and point out that Bill Clinton and most of the top Democrat party leadership held identical beliefs to Bush about the existence of Iraqi WMD and the need for “regime change,” it all comes down to a simple formula.  Bush is for it, so I’m against it.  Or, in a slightly different version of the same basic motivation, if Bush will benefit from it politically, then I’m opposed to it philosophically.

The Uber-Right is a bit more complicated in its underlying rationale and motivations.  To avoid the charge that I’m just goading this discussion by mischaracterizing their views, I’ll concede that these folks have, in their minds, a well-crafted, internally consistent, highly principled reason for wanting to get out of Iraq now.

This now brings us back to the pudding.  These motivations — for either the Left or Right — may be important to those who hold these beliefs, but the question on the table isn’t why the U.S. should get out of Iraq, but rather how the U.S. (assuming it should) get out of Iraq?

We’ll leave the should we stay or should we leave question aside for the moment so as not to distract from this debate.  For discussion purposes let's assume that the ideological Left and Right have prevailed, and the slogan “get out of Iraq” is now the ultimate policy objective.  So, how exactly do we do this?  The focus is on how to translate this slogan into actual policy so something tangible can be accomplished.  At this point it doesn’t really matter whether we’re doing it because we hate Bush, or because we believe that the Iraq war is unconstitutional.  We have over 160,000 American troops in Iraq, plus equipment and support staff.  How do we pull them all out “now?”

I first posed this little challenge in my essay of several months ago, “How to Fix a Problem.”  Instead of endlessly quoting one’s favorite philosophy or philosopher, how about using that philosophical foundation to guide us through answers to some real world problems?  I received one answer in the comment section when I asked for a practical application of the political theory this individual was touting to the situation in Iraq.  It bears repeating because it’s a perfect illustration of the centerpiece of this essay.  The “practical” policy guidance I was given was, simply, “Get out of Iraq.”

The author of this policy bristled when I pointed out that saying that we need to “get out of Iraq” isn’t a policy prescription, it’s simply political rhetoric.  This prompted the following reply:  “Why is saying we need to get out of Iraq not a policy prescription? Because you don’t agree with it? That is exactly what we need to do. Get out.”

Okay — get out . . . when?  Tomorrow?  In six months?  In six years?  In 60+ years like the occupation of Germany?  What does “get out” mean?  Every American soldier and civilian tomorrow, in 6 months, six years, etc.?  Do some people stay behind?  Who, and how many?  What about the Iraqis who supported us?  Do we leave them to die?  Believe they won’t die and leave them anyway?  Take some/all of them with us and give them asylum?  And when we leave, do we run, walk, or sneak away to send a signal to our enemies that we’re sorry, determined, or contrite for being there in the first place?  And will any or all of this convince our enemies — whether they are pre- or post-Iraq invasion bad guys — not kill any more U.S. citizens, or do we need to do other things in conjunction with “get out?”  You know, minor, unimportant details like this.

“Get out” is a slogan, just as “we shouldn’t have gotten in in the first place” is a slogan.  Each may be a philosophically-inspired slogan, but neither is a blueprint for making policy except in the most generous sense.  It’s like counseling a depressed person to “be happy,” or a poor person to “get rich,” or a person who did X not to do X in the first place.  On a high level it may be very sound advice.  On a practical level it’s just mindless prattle, unless a prescription to achieve those goals accompanies the high-minded rhetoric.  It makes the person uttering the phrase feel good about themselves, and renews that mystical bond with the philosophers of the past.  But it doesn’t do a damn thing to make that wish into a reality, or further, deal with the reality that accompanies that wish.

This is the emptiness of much of what passes for intelligent political discourse when the object is to see how many of your favorite philosopher’s adages you can memorize, rather than applying the principles they articulate to identifying and solving contemporary social, economic and political problems.  Either the people offering these platitudes as policy are incapable of translating their principles into real world actions, or they are fully aware of how odious some of those actions will be if they let those principles actually dictate policy.  Either way they continue to engage in a political debate that can have no actual consequence, therefore no actual conclusion, because every issue they cite, every pronouncement they make, is simply an abstract philosophical point.  Since it is not meant to address any tangible issues, it’s just an abstract mental diversion.  Whoever has the better reading list or megaphone wins, even if the principles they embrace have no real-world application.

Philosophy can guide an action, but policy based on philosophy requires more than a reference to Aristotle or Rousseau.  Saying that we need to “get out of Iraq” isn't a policy prescription.  It’s simply more rhetoric. If philosophy is to have meaningful substance, it must provide practical guidance for actions based on the principles it embraces.  Just citing the principles and walking away from further discussion does nothing except contribute to a genuine man-made global warming crisis by pumping more hot air into the atmosphere.

But you’re not likely to see any real policy options discussed by these proponents, because when the curtain is stripped away these people have no answers, just complaints.  They have no policies, just philosophies that must remain at an abstract level for fear of exposing what the actual policies arising from this worldview might be.  That is, assuming there are any practical lessons to be drawn from their philosophizing in the first place.

I’ll end this essay with a little prediction.  Rather than addressing the hows, whys, and wherefores of unilaterally pulling out of Iraq immediately, over time, or only when the combat ceases, those who base their objection to the Iraq war on philosophical grounds will:

(A) Focus on why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place, without addressing the practical issues regarding a US withdrawal, or

(B) Define “practical” policy matters as the pursuit of a proper philosophical position, or

(C) Contend that the practical details and consequences of an arbitrary US withdrawal are somebody else’s issue to address, or

(D) Refuse to concede that any concrete practical issues need to be addressed at all!  “Get out now” is all the practical guidance one needs.  The rest (like what happens to the population that supported us, and whether or not our enemies will be emboldened by cutting and running), are just insignificant details not worthy of further discussion.

The “trap” (as this approach has been characterized) of seeing whether the ultra Left or Right’s worldview bears any resemblance to reality has now been laid.

I am waiting (and hoping) to be proven wrong about what I’ve said above, so an actual conversation can begin.  I hold out absolutely no hope that the ideologues of the Left will offer anything constructive until Bush is safely out of office, and can be given no credit for any success in Iraq. 

As for the ideologues of the Right, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if an actual discussion develops, or we get, once again, some variation of the four options above.