What are we fighting for?
In regard to the debate that's been going on on my blog for the past few days, I thought I'd post this.
There's a guy in Baghdad that has a Blogspot blog (go figure), and we asked him to write an article for us.
He posted the same article on his blog under the heading 'What independence means to me'. I highly encourage you to read it. Hopefully it'll shed some light on just exactly what we're accomplishing in Iraq and around the world, despite the negative media coverage.
posted by That guy @ 5:15 PM
12 Comments:
But what really is the ratio of afreeiraqis vs. suicide-bombers?
Uh...I would guess it's very lobsided in favor of free Iraqis.
You can't possibly be suggesting that suicide bombers make up a substantial amount of the Iraqi population. Are you?
There are millions of people in that country, as opposed to perhaps thousands of insurgents, and even fewer suicide bombers (probably dozens, maybe...MAYBE a few hundred.)
What's your point?
Just because there's a resistance doesn't mean the mission is a total failure. People don't like to talk about it, but after WWII, we dealt with the same thing from loyalists to Hitler and Hirohito. It went on for like 10 years. But I don't think anyone would disagree that it was worth it, except for maybe Pat Buchannan. And Pat Buchannan doesn't know what he's talking about.
So what are you suggesting? That because a statistical anomoly of a population stages attacks against their own people, that the whole mission wasn't worth it?
Well, it's that few hundred that really will stop at nothing to get us out of there. And kill as many Americans as possible in the process.
And why are we over there continuing fight an unjust war anyway?
Ok I'm not going to re-debate the whole just/unjust-ness of the war. All that happened in 2002, and it is what it is.
But in as much as they will stop at noting to get us out of there, is it working? No. Not unless people like you start getting elected, God help us.
And what do these people stand for? Freedom? Liberty? Not likely. Are you suggesting we surrender to them?
But if you want to be all soft-spined and squimish because of a few religious extremists hate everything we stand for, be my guest. Personally, I'd rather stand in support for the Iraqis that want freedom and in stark opposition to those who prefer terror and religious extremism.
But hey...to each his own. Just spare me the recycled, tired liberal talking points.
Hey, it's a good arguement.
No it isn't.
It's narrow-minded, ethnocentric, and uncompassionate. Everything you would otherwise claim to be against...if only it would fit your political agenda.
It's narrow minded because it assumes that Iraqis, or any group of people, don't WANT freedom.
It's ethnocentric in as much as you sound like it's ok if Iraqis die, so long as Americans don't.
And it's uncompassionate because, even though we have the ability and means to help these people, we don't because...well, actually I can't think of a reason. But I'm sure you can.
And what makes it unjust? The fact that the U.N. didn't want to enforce its own resolutions? Exactly what law have we broken that makes it 'unjust'? Enlighten me.
Just War Theory
Jus ad Bellum
~Fighting for a just cause [Protecting yourself/an ally is an example]
~Proper authority declares war (Congress or the like)
~Right intention (This not only means 'go to war to accomplish good', but also 'the reason given for going to war is the actual reason for fighting the war')
~War is fought only as a last resort (diplomacy has been exhausted)
~Probability of success (don't instigate a war you cannot win)
~Proportionality (ends justify means used)
Jus in Bello
~Descrimination (civilians are not targeted)
~Proportionality (ends justify means)
Just an ethical ideal that's been around since the fourth century.
Nothing you just said contradicts anything we've done in reagrds to the war.
Is the cause of liberating an entire nation from a despotic dictator NOT a just one?
Congress DID give President Bush the authority to deploy the military. Whether or not it was a 'declaration of war' is simply an issue of semantics.
What reason was given to go to war that wasn't a reason for fighting the war? (And don't say WMD, because EVERYONE agreed that he was making them before the war...even the U.N., France, and everyone else agreed. Only after the war did we find out that the intelligence was wrong.)
Diplomacy WAS exhausted because the U.N. backed down from ITS OWN resolution demanding compliance from Saddam Hussein. Nothing was changing through diplomacy, so as usual, the United States had to do the dirty work.
Don't instigate a war you can't win? Are you serious? Are you actually suggesting that we're not winning this war? We've been at war for almost 2 and a half years, and have lost fewer than 2,000 soldiers. In contrast, we were in WWII for 4 years and lost 292,000. At that rate, 365 American soliders would havev to die every day for the next year and a half to match the toll of WWII. Not to mention the fact that we've facilitated a democracy in a region of the world that hasn't seen it, well, ever. Not bad for 2 and a half years of work, if you ask me.
And uh...in case you haven't turned on a TV or read a newspaper in the last 12 hours, WE'RE not the ones targeting civilians.
It's never 'American military sets off car bomb in Baghdad' or 'American soldier straps self with explosives and detonates near police station' or 'American soldier blows up London subway', is it?
Your 4th century ethical ideals are all well and good, except for the fact that they facilitate regimes like Saddam Hussein that slaughter their own people.
What would your 4th century ethics say about turning a blind eye to genocide and repeated human rights and international law violations?
The smarter you try to sound, the more it has the opposite effect.
I've hashed the Iraq issue to death on these criteria. I suppose, like all areas of ethics, it's in the eye of the beholder.
As for going to war for WMD, Truman put it best when he said "You don't 'prevent' anything by war … except peace."
Truman also OK'd the only use of atomic weapons in history. What's your point?
And clever quotes never solved anything. You can prevent a lot of things by war. It's just hard to tell what would have happened without the prevention.
Saddam Hussein COULD HAVE produced WMD and either used them or given them to terrorists. But we'll never know if it really would have happened or not.
War prevented that in as much as now we can be rather certain that he won't ever have the opportunity to do so...especially once his head lands in a basket.
I'd much rather err on the side of him NOT having that opportunity.
So then why haven't we invaded North Korea yet?
You want the short answer or the long answer?
The short answer would be because they have the bomb, and a massive system of tunnels that they could use to get away from us.
And there's a ton of other political/economic reasons that are preventing it, but I'm not going to get into them here.
Don't get me wrong...I'd be all for it, it's just not happening any time soon. We'd invade Iran before we invaded the DPRK.
Post a Comment
<< Home