Mid-terms are mostly eating my lunch this week, so nothing too new or exciting to post about. As a cheap shot, I thought I would bring up the Iraq war. Is the war justified?
I have come to the strange revelation that for me the answer is yes. My reasons, however, are different than the ones the Bush administration puts forward:
"There were WMDs in Iraq." The obvious retort to this is that none have been found, nor has there been evidence that they were ever in existence there. But giving WMDers the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there were in fact WMDs, two problems remain:
1) Umm.... Don't we have WMDs? Does this not justify "preemptive strikes" against us by our enemies?
2) If there were WMDs but they were somehow magically transported outside of the country, why didn't we foresee this? Somehow I have trouble believing our military is that inept.
"Iraq was harboring terrorists." I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Of all the Arabic countries in the world, there were a lot of better candidates for "terrorist harboring" than the secular "we hate Islamic extremists" Ba'athists.
"The world is better off without Hussein."
American Casualties: 8604 (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)
Iraqi Civilian Casualties: est. 30685 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/index.php)
Total: 39,289
While it is impossible to dismiss the deaths of 40,000 people, this number pales in comparison to the 300,000 reportedly murdered under Saddam Hussein's regime (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm).
So is the world better off without Hussein in power? Certainly. There are a few things I would like to point out, however, that complicate the issue. First off, let's not let the imposed US telos of the war erase from our minds the fact that, as is the case with so many recent boogey men, our own CIA saw to this man's rise in power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein). Also, at the time, a lasting genocide in Sudan was claiming 2 million people's lives (http://www.crimesofwar.org/sudan-mag/sudan-in-discuss.html)!
"The people of Iraq need Democracy." Sorry, but this is the most ridiculous argument of them all. Why have we not invaded China? Why have we not invaded North Korea for heaven's sake, a country without Democracy and with WMDs?
Actually, I don't advocate the invading of any country unless it meets one of the following criteria:
1) They have declared war on us and we are striking in order to end the war.
2) A multilateral force like NATO or the UN approve of intervention.
The Iraq war was a multilateral intervention. Yes, it consisted entirely of US allies who were no doubt bullied into supporting the war and with the exception of GB lent only token forces, but the fact of the matter is that foreign troops were on the ground with us. The world is better off without Hussein. But let's not play games with the American people about our motives. We are in Iraq because of oil. WMDs, terrorist harboring, the spreading of Democracy, and being overly concerned about genocide were all ways to sell the war. If I had control of the world's greatest military, taking out Hussein would be quite a bit lower on my list of priorities than intervention in Sudan. And even with those other priorities accomplished, I would garner lots more international support before stepping foot in Iraq.
I struggle a lot with the issue of pacifism. I don't think I could ever go to war as a soldier, and at times I have trouble justifying any war at all. But then I think of Hitler and realize that there really are monsters out there that need slaying. I think of someone raping my wife or molesting my kid and I'm pretty sure I would beat the ever loving crap out them. I'm confused. Anyways, let the debate commence oh faithful readers! Or more realistically, Greg, please post one comment to make me feel loved.
Iraq
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
13 Comments:
First off, a quick jab. Is it proper to cite Wikipedia as a place of reliable knowledge? A 5 year old could have edited that web page.
Anyway, concerning your thoughts. It seems to me the reason that you are ok with the war is because a multilateral force was involved, is that correct? If so why say this about the countries who helped the US, that they "were no doubt bullied into supporting the war"? Wouldn't that on principle throw out the argument?
Secondly, what makes you think they were 'bullied' into anything?
Thirdly, I'd like to see some proof that we are gaining in some way from the Iraqi oil fields. Gas prices are rising in Memphis, and as far as I can find our companies aren't coming into a windfall of crude oil.
It seems like I'm coming down hard on you, and maybe I am. I don't understand your reasoning on some of this so I welcome an explanation. That being said I still am not convinced that the war should have been fought, multilaterally or not. Our troops remaining there are just fueling the violence and I'm not sure that a civil war will be avoided.
I'll leave the pacifism alone for now (like the idea though), maybe I'll post something about it.
Hmm, I meant to say "It seems like I'm coming down hard on you, but I don't mean to be."
-kyle a.k.a the one who can't remember his username/password
It's funny you bring up Wikipedia, the same debate is here at the SFA English department. So far the concensus seems to be that quoting Wikipedia as a primary source is entirely inappropriate for formal academic writing. The strange thing is, however, that regardless of the subject, you will probably find the most up-to-date compilation of primary sources summarized for public access on Wikipedia. Therefore, it's not a bad idea to start there and check out the sources quotes at the bottom.
The reasons I am OK with the fact that the war happened:
a) Saddam was a "monster that needs slaying": 300,000 people killed by his regime.
b) The war was a multilateral intervention. I think the bullying is irrelevant. If there was bullying (which I think there was definitively some diplomatic arm twisting), then shame on the countries that caved in and supported the war just to appease the US.
As far as the oil, Donald Rumsfeld made the statement early on that the oil fields alone would finance the war. This has most definitively NOT been the case, but it points out that the Bush administration had some kind of strange misconception about access to oil after the fall of the Iraqi government.
As far as how the war was done, when the war was done, and how the aftermath has been handled, I think our administration has completely dropped the ball. Usually, people's response to statements like the one above is "OK, do you have a better idea of how it should have been done?" While I'm not qualified to answer that question as a civilian who is in no way connected to the government, here's how I would have handled the war:
HOW: Don't step foot in Iraq without UN backing.
WHEN: After more important priorities (like Sudan) are taken care of.
AFTERMATH: Instead of instantly replacing their existing system of government with a Democracy, work with what is in place to GRADUALLY MOVE towards a Democracy. Just because Hussein was evil doesn't mean he didn't know a thing or two about governing his people. Also, be sure you have long-term commitments from the international community to see things through long enough for the country to restabilize.
Let's see. I think it likely that anti war propaganda is just as much propaganda as any of Bush's reasons for being in Iraq. "It's all about oil" seems a little naive to me. Admittedly, I am in a great deal of ignorance about all of this. My outsider's perspective is that if you are willing to say Sadam might know something about governing despite being evil, you should also be willing to say that Bush might have other, better reasons (some of which you don't know about) despite being a money grubbing capitalist (also evil?).
Mostly there is a problem in my mind with making the moral distinctions between Sudan (foreign govt. intervention appropriate) and Iraq (not). If we are talking about morally policing other nations, it becomes very difficult to say that the body count in Sudan requires more attention than the Hussein regime, or if it does, that one is a valid reason for American intervention and the other not. Other factors notwithstanding.
yeah. i get pretty passionate sometimes about this stuff, and then on other days (like today) i feel strongly disinterested. at best, my passion with regards to things i know close to nothing about is emotively convincing (at least to myself), and at worst a quick way to have my face turn red.
other reasons for bush? probably. it's sad though that in the country most vocal about its democracy we know so little about why we're buying bullets to kill strangers.
i would think something that would uncomplicate whether to go into iraq or sudan would be the sheer number of people being slaughtered. what reason could be (morally) more important? 300,000 is a lot smaller number than 2 million.
i feel dirty even talking about this topic. war is such a hideous, disgusting thing.
my sentiments exactly.
You gotta face it though, Bush had a personal vendetta with Saddam long before 9/11 or even his presidency. If someone tried to murder your father, wouldn't you?
I'll post more later...I've got lots of thoughts on this. :-) Sorry I'm late!
Were the coalition nations bullied? Yes. Did we bully them? Maybe not. I think the simple fact that we are the world's only super-power means we can't help but be the bully, even when we're not. Other nations know that aligning with us with be beneficial for them, and the opposite is also true.
Oil: I don't ever think the objective was to go in, grab Saddam and go bathe in oil. More likely the administration was thinking 10-20 years down the road, and wanted to be able to say to Iraq, "Remember back in 2004 when we brought you your independance? Now help us with our energy problem..."
Civil War: Yep.
UN: As far as the UN, I share John Bolton's sentiments about letting the top 12 floors cave in. That organization has proven to be as corrupt as Saddam's, and as far as I'm concerned we should pull out.
I think it's interesting to note that in the mid-90s we were 36 hours away from sponsoring a military coup in Iraq and Clinton called it off. I hope that wasn't Iraq golden opportunity missed.
I agree totally about the UN Tyson. Well, except about the demolition of a totally usable building.
Disclaimer: This is not an attack to anyone who's posted, just thoughts that sparked from reading your comments.
Hmmm....the difference between Sudan and Iraq? Well, what interests (economical or other) does the US have in Sudan? I don't know of any. In Iraq there is oil and to be able to control such a country would be a tremendous economical asset in the long run (emphasis is in the long run). Lets see, Iraq has a dictator, why don't we go there, gain control, and look good while doing it, because after all we want is to spread democracy. So here, Iraq, here is democracy for you.
I agree that the UN is a corrupted body that needs some pushing around to get anything done, however, it is the only body who needs to act as the police of the world, as opposed to one country doing so.
As far as naivity is concerned, yes, there are probably things we don't know that the intelligence (which has already failed to successfully determine the presence of WMDs) provides, but I wonder, isn't it naive to not question the government?
-this is Eralda (forgot my password too)
wow! this is like lunch in the Harding cafeteria our freshman year! all's we need is for mikey to get on and ask eralda to put ketchup on a banana and eat it.
Nobody can invade China!!
I think deep down I escaped the US so I could bury me head in Asia and not worry about any of this, but I suppose everybody is making good points. I suppose when I pull my head out of the sand and think about it I don't think any of it really matters. To take the sentiment from Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side", these are just governments acting the way governments always have. So I think it's almost laughable to even use the word "morally" when talking about actions of America or any other country.
Did we really fight in WWII because Hitler was murdering Jews, or was it because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Did we even know about the Holocaust until the war was over?
So of course we won't go to Sudan, or any other country where thousands are dying just to stop bloodshed. Governments act in the intrest of remaining in power.
Now this isn't so evil as it sounds, Bush ( or anybody else ) is ( in his own mind ) defending the American way of life. He's doing what he thinks is best. I will leave it to politicians to determine whether it's actually best or not.
But as an idividual Christian, I know that God know's the needs of ever person no matter their location. And while Christ was very concerned with the suffering , carnal needs are not what is most important. Suffering is temporary, and God is faithful.
So looking to government to solve the moral dilemma's of the day is a pointless excercise in my mind. I guess what I'm saying is going to Iraq ( from one standpoint ) wasn't right or wrong, it's just what governments do. And from another standpoint, it couldn't possibly be right, because the government would never do it for a totally moral reason. Taking Hussein out of power was a prudent political move. Removing somebody who was evil was just a byproduct.
I love you bryan, I didn't mean to take a shot at anybody. Nobody can invade China!!!
invade china? suicide. wasn't there a quote in the Princess Bride that says "never wage a land-war in Asia" or something?
Post a Comment
<< Home