Kant & Petraeus & Bush & Escher

For anyone who has been living under a rock this week, the Commanding General of the Multinational Force Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress this past week. In the course of the various lengthy hearings, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Petraeus if the current course of action in Iraq is "making America safer". The General responded that he believed the current course is the best way to achieve our objectives in Iraq. The senator asked again, but it is making us safer. Petraeus responded, "Sir, I don't know, actually. I haven't sat down and thought it through..." Many jumped on him for this, Joe Biden calling it "unconscionable", but ol 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant had his back....

Excerpted from Immanuel Kant's "What is Enlightenment':
"The enlightenment requires nothing but freedom: freedom to make public use of one's own reason in all matters....On the other hand, the private use of reason may frequently be narrowly restricted without especially hindering the progress of enlightenment. By 'public use of reason' I mean that use which man, as a scholar, makes of it before the reading public . I call 'private use' that use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him...and where arguing is not permitted: one must obey....Thus it would be very unfortunate if an officer on duty and under orders from his superiors should want to criticize the appropriateness or utility of his orders. He must obey....This is nothing that could burden his conscience. He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of another."

In other news, unfortunately, it looks as though I may have been more correct than I cared to be about 2 months back when I wrote a post entitled "We Are Not Leaving Iraq", in which I laid out why I thought we are probably stuck there for the long haul, no matter how much grandstanding and fervor comes out of the left, ending with the prediction, "We aren't leaving Iraq. Not today. Not 6 months from now. Not January 20, 2009. Maybe not ever."

Then the president addressed the nation last night with just such a proposal for perpetual presence :
"This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."

So we stay there "until the job is done" or we stay there because the job is done? Looks like M.C. Escher somehow saw this coming too:


Back to Kant, Mr. President:
The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.