David Brooks’ central argument is that he supports nation building despite some hardships and setbacks. He acknowledges that the United States has invested a lot of time and resources into developing Iraq and because of all the sacrifices, it will be worth it. On the other hand, Dan Ehrlich is against nation building and as history has shown, the United States has not gotten much back from all their costly involvements.
In supporting his main argument, Brooks points out that Iraq has show drastic improvements in their economy, society, and politics after the U.S. got involved. In 2010, “Iraq will have the 12th-fastest-growing economy in the world” (Brooks) with signs that it will continue to grow each year. All other areas such as inflation, budget surplus, unemployment, and oil production have improved as well even though it was gradual. Society has gotten slightly gotten better as more locals have more access to phones and internet service as well as healthier living conditions. “Politically, the basic structure is sound, and a series of impressive laws have been passed” (Brooks). Ehrlich defends his stance by referring to the United States’ history of global involvement, specifically the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the Middle East (Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan). None of these have yielded any clear victory but has instead, set the nation back with debt and casualties. The Korean War ended in a stalemate which gave rise to North Korea as a nuclear threat while the Vietnam War resulted in a similar fashion. The Middle East involvement started as a “War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere…with no end in sight (Ehrlich).
Personally, I agree more with Dan Ehrlich and his stance on nation building. The United States has spent way too much time, money, and manpower fighting other people’s conflict. The sad part is that the government reasons their involvement based on the false pretense of “national...