Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
The Ethics of War
There is no small number of people that believe that the imminent invasion of Iraq is unethical and counter to all that the United States stands for as a nation. That our interference in the internal affairs of other nations is un-American and a gross violation of the legacy that the founding fathers of this nation entrusted to us.
Their case is not without merit. We, as a nation, put great stock in our sovereignty and react strongly to attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of our nation. Witness our election laws for one example. For the greater part of our nations existence we've been primarily isolationist in nature. Content to live in the security that the two great oceans afford us.
We have generally lived up to these ideals. Most of our ventures were restricted to the Western Hemisphere as a result of the Monroe Doctrine. However our first foreign venture was on the coast of Northern Africa where Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marines to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates sailing from Tripoli. Then there was the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American war. Both fought to keep European influence at a minimum in the America's. There is still no small amount of discussion concerning the Mexican-American war even today.
We were dragged kicking and screaming into the First World War and the same case could arguably be made for the Second World War. Then came Korea and Viet Nam. Both fought to contain the spread of totalitarianism. And a history of smaller forays onto foreign shores to protect American interests and citizens. Overall, however, our ventures in matters military have been slight.
The world has become much smaller and much more dangerous. The collapse of the Soviet Union removed, for the time being, the prospect of a nuclear conflagration. That was certainly a feat of no small consequence. At the same time a balancing power was removed from the worlds stage. Good, bad, or indifferent, the Soviets acted as a moderating force on their client states and everyone knew the rules. The Soviets were no more eager to engage in a direct confrontation with the west than the west was inclined to directly confront the Soviets. Thus, from the worlds stage was removed a force that could act as a moderator against the blind ambitions of petty tyrants such as we see in Saddam Hussein. The Soviets understood the consequences of the use of CBR weapons (WMD's for you PC types out there) and conducted their policies accordingly. There are more than a few small and ambitious nations that covet these weapons and would (and have in some instances) willingly use them as a means of achieving national goals. And for the most part these nations do not understand the politics of the use of these weapons.
We are now faced with the imminent invasion of Iraq. What is the case for this invasion?
The Case against Saddam.
Saddam rose to political prominence on the basis of a botched assassination attempt. In 1979 he deposed his own mentor and has ruled Iraq with an iron fist ever since. His mandate for his claim on the presidency has been a bullet in the brain, or a sliced throat, or the garroting of all of his political foes. He believes in preemptive strikes. His ascension to power was more or less accomplished with the help of the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States in a more or less passive role (we didn't protest) and the Soviets in a more active role (weapons). The politics of these decisions were more or less straightforward. Both countries wanted a check against the Islamic Fundamentalist movement that had started in Iran. Thus it was thought that the interests of both super powers were conjoined. The Soviets got a customer for their weapon systems and the United States got a buffer state between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saddam immediately launched a war against Iran over the Shat al Arab waterway. A war in which he first used chemical weapons. That conflict lasted almost 10 years with the only issue being whether Iran would run out of bodies to throw at Saddam before Saddam ran out of ammunition. The war more or less ended in a draw.
Not satisfied with that outcome, Saddam then invaded Kuwait. We all know the story there.
Saddam has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the northern sector of Iraq and there is anecdotal evidence that he also used these weapons against the Shi'as in southern Iraq.
During the second Gulf war he pre-emptorily used Scud missiles against Israel, a non-combatant.
He was months away from nuclear capability when the hostilities ended. And has been playing a shell game with his CBR capabilities and programs ever since.
It was reported in Janes yesterday that there are unconfirmed reports of Hezbollah having chemical warheads for their 122mm rockets in southern Lebanon. Saddam IS the state sponsor of Hezbollah and if these reports are true, he is the only probable source of these warheads. And there is only one possible target for these weapons.
He has violated every agreement that he has signed. The comparison of Saddam to Hitler is not without merit.
Nation Building.
There is an equally valid argument put forth by those that are against this war that democracy has never been successfully exported. That democracy must rise from the people not be instituted from above. This is an argument for which there is no counter. For it is true. One might argue weakly for Japan alone.
The United States was born of war. An uprising by the colonists against an oppressive monarchy. Fortunately we were birthed as a nation at a time when the citizens were armed and capable of resisting the occupying troops. A mistake that all the European nations took note of and have been systematically disarming their citizens ever since. Iraq's citizens are disarmed. They have no possible means to mount an insurrection against the Hussein regime. And while we may not be able to export a democracy that lasts, we can at least give them the opportunity to try to institute a democracy. Saddams Baath party is a minority of the Sunni Muslim population which is itself a minority. 65% of Iraq's population is Shi'a or Kurdish. The Shi'as being the majority by far.
Economics.
There is no substantial economic benefit to the United States in the overthrow of the Saddam regime. Iraq will continue to sell it's oil, Saddam or no Saddam. France and Germany would be economic losers and Russia the economic winner. Great Britain, Norway, Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela would also be short term economic beneficiaries.
Peace in our time.
If we as a nation, and if the nations of the world would like to live together in a state of peaceful coexistence, then Saddam Hussein and others like him must go.
And the ethical question that we must each ask ourselves is whether the cost of deposing Saddam is greater or less than the cost of leaving him in power.
Ishmael
There is no small number of people that believe that the imminent invasion of Iraq is unethical and counter to all that the United States stands for as a nation. That our interference in the internal affairs of other nations is un-American and a gross violation of the legacy that the founding fathers of this nation entrusted to us.
Their case is not without merit. We, as a nation, put great stock in our sovereignty and react strongly to attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of our nation. Witness our election laws for one example. For the greater part of our nations existence we've been primarily isolationist in nature. Content to live in the security that the two great oceans afford us.
We have generally lived up to these ideals. Most of our ventures were restricted to the Western Hemisphere as a result of the Monroe Doctrine. However our first foreign venture was on the coast of Northern Africa where Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marines to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates sailing from Tripoli. Then there was the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American war. Both fought to keep European influence at a minimum in the America's. There is still no small amount of discussion concerning the Mexican-American war even today.
We were dragged kicking and screaming into the First World War and the same case could arguably be made for the Second World War. Then came Korea and Viet Nam. Both fought to contain the spread of totalitarianism. And a history of smaller forays onto foreign shores to protect American interests and citizens. Overall, however, our ventures in matters military have been slight.
The world has become much smaller and much more dangerous. The collapse of the Soviet Union removed, for the time being, the prospect of a nuclear conflagration. That was certainly a feat of no small consequence. At the same time a balancing power was removed from the worlds stage. Good, bad, or indifferent, the Soviets acted as a moderating force on their client states and everyone knew the rules. The Soviets were no more eager to engage in a direct confrontation with the west than the west was inclined to directly confront the Soviets. Thus, from the worlds stage was removed a force that could act as a moderator against the blind ambitions of petty tyrants such as we see in Saddam Hussein. The Soviets understood the consequences of the use of CBR weapons (WMD's for you PC types out there) and conducted their policies accordingly. There are more than a few small and ambitious nations that covet these weapons and would (and have in some instances) willingly use them as a means of achieving national goals. And for the most part these nations do not understand the politics of the use of these weapons.
We are now faced with the imminent invasion of Iraq. What is the case for this invasion?
The Case against Saddam.
Saddam rose to political prominence on the basis of a botched assassination attempt. In 1979 he deposed his own mentor and has ruled Iraq with an iron fist ever since. His mandate for his claim on the presidency has been a bullet in the brain, or a sliced throat, or the garroting of all of his political foes. He believes in preemptive strikes. His ascension to power was more or less accomplished with the help of the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States in a more or less passive role (we didn't protest) and the Soviets in a more active role (weapons). The politics of these decisions were more or less straightforward. Both countries wanted a check against the Islamic Fundamentalist movement that had started in Iran. Thus it was thought that the interests of both super powers were conjoined. The Soviets got a customer for their weapon systems and the United States got a buffer state between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saddam immediately launched a war against Iran over the Shat al Arab waterway. A war in which he first used chemical weapons. That conflict lasted almost 10 years with the only issue being whether Iran would run out of bodies to throw at Saddam before Saddam ran out of ammunition. The war more or less ended in a draw.
Not satisfied with that outcome, Saddam then invaded Kuwait. We all know the story there.
Saddam has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the northern sector of Iraq and there is anecdotal evidence that he also used these weapons against the Shi'as in southern Iraq.
During the second Gulf war he pre-emptorily used Scud missiles against Israel, a non-combatant.
He was months away from nuclear capability when the hostilities ended. And has been playing a shell game with his CBR capabilities and programs ever since.
It was reported in Janes yesterday that there are unconfirmed reports of Hezbollah having chemical warheads for their 122mm rockets in southern Lebanon. Saddam IS the state sponsor of Hezbollah and if these reports are true, he is the only probable source of these warheads. And there is only one possible target for these weapons.
He has violated every agreement that he has signed. The comparison of Saddam to Hitler is not without merit.
Nation Building.
There is an equally valid argument put forth by those that are against this war that democracy has never been successfully exported. That democracy must rise from the people not be instituted from above. This is an argument for which there is no counter. For it is true. One might argue weakly for Japan alone.
The United States was born of war. An uprising by the colonists against an oppressive monarchy. Fortunately we were birthed as a nation at a time when the citizens were armed and capable of resisting the occupying troops. A mistake that all the European nations took note of and have been systematically disarming their citizens ever since. Iraq's citizens are disarmed. They have no possible means to mount an insurrection against the Hussein regime. And while we may not be able to export a democracy that lasts, we can at least give them the opportunity to try to institute a democracy. Saddams Baath party is a minority of the Sunni Muslim population which is itself a minority. 65% of Iraq's population is Shi'a or Kurdish. The Shi'as being the majority by far.
Economics.
There is no substantial economic benefit to the United States in the overthrow of the Saddam regime. Iraq will continue to sell it's oil, Saddam or no Saddam. France and Germany would be economic losers and Russia the economic winner. Great Britain, Norway, Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela would also be short term economic beneficiaries.
Peace in our time.
If we as a nation, and if the nations of the world would like to live together in a state of peaceful coexistence, then Saddam Hussein and others like him must go.
And the ethical question that we must each ask ourselves is whether the cost of deposing Saddam is greater or less than the cost of leaving him in power.
Ishmael
