Disclaimer: Of course it's controversial... that's why it's here.
There really isn't much that is more controversial than U.S. Involvement in wars of one kind or another. As one of the world's major powers, we set an example for the rest of the world, whether that is our intention or not.
By now you probably realize that I am something of a social liberal. In fact, I consider people like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama to be moderate conservatives. I am not however a pacifist, as such. I believe there are better alternatives to war. I also think war should be a last resort when all else fails and the consequences of NOT taking military action would be dire.
It is my contention that any war or 'military action' which is not a direct counter to an attack on American soil is an invalid war and should not be undertaken. As an example then, the strike against terrorists in Afghanistan WAS valid because the U.S. was attacked first. Attacking Iraq was NOT valid, and should never have been started because no action had been taken against the U.S.
I can see all the military people and conservatives with pro-military leanings out there shaking their heads at the poor misguided liberal and telling their friends that it just isn't that simple. Well, actually it is. Sure, Saddam Heusen was a hot-headed bully who only knew the meaning of civil rights so that he could violate them more fully. He certainly had a record of military actions against the countries around him. If he had been in possession of weapons of mass destruction he would undoubtedly have had few scruples about using them to get his way.
But the core of this question is an ethical one. You can't-- or shouldn't-- attack a bully, whether person or a country, because they MIGHT do something. I don't care what your religious persuasion, or lack of it, is: It just isn't right. If you shoot your neighbor because something has given you the idea they MIGHT be going to shoot you... who is the criminal?
But, what about all the bad things Saddam Heusen DID, I can hear you wanting to say. Those things fall under the province either of the countries the acts were committed against or the United Nations. They are NOT and would not be the responsibility of the U.S. UNLESS actions were taken against a country with which the U.S. had a legal treaty of protection.
Some might say that is a rather callous attitude. Not really. It is more a practical attitude. There are more injustices being committed in the world today than even the United States could possibly fix. War is not the answer to righting the world's wrongs. It simply makes more of them. It should be remembered too that even the best of intentions can sometimes make things worse. I am fairly certain that the net effect, in nearly every way, is going to turn out to be quite negative from our interference in Iraq.
There are also 'appearances' to consider. I realize most conservatives have a rather belligerent attitude with regard to what 'feriners' think of us. But our world is becoming an ever smaller place as communications improve to tie us together. If we don't learn to live together, there may be no living left to do eventually.
Since no 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' were ever found in Iraq, it is pretty easy to conclude that either our much-vaunted intelligence gathering systems are about as effective as a spy ring prize in a box of cereal, or that they were hampered by a president who had already decided what results he wanted, i.e. an invasion of Iraq. Since I came to the latter conclusion myself, I could hardly fault the people of other countries for doing the same.
After reaching that conclusion, it is only a very minor leap of intuition to arrive at the possibility that the REAL reason for our involvement in Iraq had something to do with oil. We need it. They have it. For all practical purposes, while occupying the country, the U.S. has control of its oil resources.
Could it be that is why our new president has taken little action for withdrawal from Iraq even though Obama was quite vocal against the war? Something is certainly keeping us there, and I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think it was any possibility of making things better for the people of Iraq by our continued occupation. In fact, the longer we are there the worse things are likely to get in terms of the eventual chaos that will ensue.
As a last note here, I'd like to take a final shot at the conservative pro-military war-is-the-answer-to-everything faction. Their strategy seems to be to get involved in a military conflict as soon as possible then immediately cry foul at anyone who protests because that would be so un-American and unpatriotic not to support the troops when they are already fighting.
Let us be clear: Our military men are a necessity and should be supported... because we might need them to protect us from a REAL threat at some point. But the more our government gets the country involved in questionable wars and military actions, the more the value and capability of our armed forces will be seen to deteriorate and will be questioned. A tool that is put to the wrong use speaks ill, not of the tool, but only the wielder. Did that one go over your head Rush? It is conservatives who are making our troops look bad by their willingness to engage in frivolous wars.
Thought before action. Fight if we must... but ONLY if we must.
That'd Be Me
Welcome to All Things Controversial where we'll be exploring topics that may raise your blood pressure. Did you remember to take your medicine?
No More (frivolous) War
Posted by : Don on
Thursday, June 11, 2009
|
Labels:
war
|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment