Route of Withdrawal

Many of the posts made comparisons between the United States and the lawyer. The argument used was that the U.S. is helping Iraq out of pity and sorrow just like the lawyer helped out Bartleby. Therefore, our aid to Iraq is in the beginning stage, where related to the lawyer’s help, we are too scared to withdraw and let Iraq establish their own government. Assuming that we will eventually withdraw from Iraq, it is interesting to think how we will end our aid. Will we quietly withdraw from Iraq to let some other nation settle the mess, like the lawyer moved his office; or will we produce a massive invasion where we will decimate the entire nation to eliminate the threat of their government? The latter option would be similar to the lawyer calling the cops to have Bartleby forcefully removed from the office. Since in class most agreed that the more cowardly option is to prolong Bartleby’s hope by not assertively removing him from the office, it seems that the United States is following a similar course of action where it is prolonging the war, and therefore dragging out the time that the Iraqi’s have to live in a broken nation. I personally think that this war will end in the lawyer’s fashion, where we just drag it out, and then try to quietly withdraw our forces. However, the establishment that it is more humane to end a relationship, whether between the lawyer and Bartleby or a boy and girlfriend, does not particularly apply to military actions. While it is better to promptly end a relationship, ending a war forcefully would be equivalent to a nuclear invasion. History showed the degree of devastation that such an act could produce during WW2 when the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan. Therefore, it might also be better that we are not doing such an assertive act to end the war. This is just my opinion, although I am also confused about which act is more moral.