In World War I and World War II, all sides suffered horribly, and that, I believe, is the reason for the choice of the phrase "scourge of war". There are various nuances to the definition of "scourge", the most benign to apply to the UN Charter is "cause of widespread affliction". Other nuances, however, contain an element of punishment, chastisement, which I think might also have applied in that choice of words. The world suffered widespread affliction in those wars, but the suffering might also be viewed as "punishment" for the shortcomings of the nations of the world to prevent those horrors. Hitler and Nazi Germany, Tojo and Imperial Japan, and Mussolini and . . . whatever the hell they were, didn't materialize in a vacuum. They weren't born eeeeevil, though we might like to think that they were. They came to power in specific geo-political-economic circumstances that allowed them to rise to power. There was not an international body where a suffering country, or a country under pressure could air its grievances. The creation of the UN and the use of the term "scourge of war", may have recognized that Hitler and Tojo may not have been able to come to power if there was an international body where Germany and Japan could have addressed the international community. And for Hitler and Tojo to inflict war would mean ignoring and sidestepping the authority of an international body.
Let's not fool ourselves about our assault on Iraq, there will be no "scourge of war" as the UN Charter reflected upon it. It will not be a situation where all parties suffer. If anything, for Americans in support of the invasion, this is light entertainment. There is no threat to a mote of American soil (except to the extent that this might encourage more terrorist acts). Americans watching the newscasts can easily switch over to Seinfeld, American Idol, Survivor, or, god forbid, Everyone Loves Raymond, during the commercial breaks. Americans in support of the invasion will watch newscasts believing we are doing the right thing. It is so morally right that ignoring and sidestepping the authority of an international body is justified. I personally disagreed with the Gulf War, pt. 1, but as a student of international law, I recognize that it was at least executed by an international, UN sanctioned coalition. Even if it was to serve our oil interests, at least it was in reaction to an aggressive military act against Kuwait.
- Is Saddam Hussein evil? Yes, he is evil and has committed unspeakable human rights violations. But so have many other leaders that the US either installed or is doing nothing similar to stop.
- What justification is there for the US military to intrude upon another nation's sovereignty to remove its leader? Hitler: direct and aggressive threat to US allies France and England. Tojo: direct attack on the US.
- Is Saddam Hussein a direct and aggressive threat to US allies, or evidenced a direct attack on the US? No. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein has the military capacity to deliver attacks or threats of attack on US soil or against allies, and even if Iraq had the capacity, there is no evidence that such an attack is imminent.
One, Two, Three Four, We don't want your racist war. Five, Six, Seven, Eight, No more violence, no more hate
Q: Excuse me, how is this a "racist war"?
A: I'm not sure, I think a lot of it is just rhetoric.
Q: Well, why are you chanting that it's a racist war if you don't believe it. Isn't that just as bad?
A: You know, that's a good point.
Truth to tell, I don't agree with a lot of the rhetoric spewed at anti-"war" rallies. Especially the slogans recycled from the Vietnam war, where they applied. "No Peace, No Justice" falls hollow because where is the justice for the Iraqi people even with "peace". In fact, all references to "peace" can go out the door because "peace" has failed miserably for the Iraqi people.
I have a very low tolerance for racism, but even I have to admit that racism has nothing to do with an invasion of Iraq. Race-based slavery may be described as a racist war. The US simply is not invading Iraq based on the race of its people. It's not a "racist war".
A good half of the slogans chanted at the anti-war rallies I've attended fail scrutiny of rationalism or applicability. But a good half apply.
I guess I'm what may be called a middle of the road anti-war supporter. Based on principles of international law, the US cannot wage a unilateral war, one without an international coalition. I'm also not against military action under any condition, and I don't get much of the anti-war fervor, based on the rhetoric, at rallies. I participate because of my general disagreement and opposition to military force, given the current evidence. If it is the will of the international community, I would reserve my personal criticism of military action. Also if there is a direct and credible threat to reasonable US interests (defending Israel would not be a reasonable threat to US interest as the US pours enough military aid for Israel to fend for itself. When support of Israel means the oppression of Arabs or any other peoples, it is not a legitimate US interest).
As it stands, the suffering that the Iraqi people might be subjected to is not justified by the evidence and sets a very bad precedent regarding what the US is allowed to do in the post-Cold War environment.
What do I think the solution is? I think the UN has failed the Iraqi people over the last 12 years. I think the resolve of George W is something Bill Clinton should have had. But I think the resolve of George W should have been channeled to make the UN inspections work, and give them time to make them work. Instead, he rushed to war because of the time frames involved, the benefit of attacking before the oppressive Summers and sandstorms of the mid-East. Given that Iraq was not immediately threatening anyone, George W did not give diplomacy a chance. And even waiting a year to see how diplomacy played out would be worth the Iraqi lives not killed in a headforth attack.
Each innocent Iraqi killed, if the tables were turned, imagine that it was your neighbor, your co-worker, your friend, your sister, your brother . . . it's hard to imagine when the US is virtually invulnerable to the scourge of war.
"Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great for righting wrongs
You hit the target and win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train with the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain with the bravery of being out of range"
- "The Bravery of Being Out of Range" (Roger Waters)
No comments:
Post a Comment