Moral War?
by Jermaine Smith
As our country and its choice few allies inch ever closer to what seems an inevitable showdown in Iraq, the voices of millions around the world have risen above the deafening drums of war to signify, arguably, the first mass world effort against war.
However, the question remains: what is the purpose of this conflict? What element pits some, myself included, against the popular vote to enter into war? Evidence is presented almost daily to support a use of force and yet, even with this, a substantial minority are not keen on the idea. Others find the verification overwhelming and eagerly anticipate the confrontation, cursing the delay.
Perhaps it is time to sit down and review the facts.
The first Bush administration initiated this confrontation over a decade ago, sending inspectors into Iraq to uncover weapons of mass destruction. The inspections never took place without Iraqi interference and, thus, the results were inconclusive and the entire process a complete waste of time. Curiously, there was never a follow up on this failed attempt to relieve Iraq of its weapons, which, as our government reminds us everyday, pose “an immediate threat to our country, our freedom and our way of life.”
That is, no one followed up until now.
Enter 2001, and nearly the first full year in office for current President George W. Bush. Terrifying images from the September 11th attacks linger fresh in the mind of all Americans, and much support and empathy pours from around the world. President Bush has vowed to apprehend and bring to justice all who aided in the most tragic day in recent American history. The United States subsequently attacks and raids Afghanistan in a (still) fruitless attempt to bring to justice the chief culprit, a one Osama Bin Laden.
President Bush, in his honorable attempt to bring stability and a sense of security back to our country, has now set out on a mission to, essentially, rid the world of “evil” and those who would collaborate and bring to fulfillment an attack on democracy (read: the United States). This evil includes, specifically, Saddam Hussein.
Yes, this point is worth repeating as it is often lost on many: the U.S. has stated repeatedly, officially, that the conflict is NOT with the citizens of Iraq, but their dictatorial leader, Hussein.
Hussein has developed (reportedly), housed (allegedly) and has no qualms with using (supposedly) weapons of mass destruction, which, as we all know, is in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441. Hussein has repeatedly interfered with the inspections, enforced by the United Nations, which would clear the nation of any wrongdoings.
In addition, it is a well-known and documented fact that Hussein has ordered the torture, blackmail and, ultimately, murder of many of his own citizens. These crimes against humanity, unquestionably, must cease immediately. That point, it seems, the world receives well.
However, that is not the reason our President gives for going to war.
As it stands, the official position of the Bush administration seems to deal predominantly with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of the Iraqi government and, more specifically, the ability of these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists.
While this certainly could be a viable threat, has it not been a threat for at least the past decade? It is undeniable that this sudden interest in security arose from the 9/11 attacks, but is that justification for immediate and forceful action on a seemingly dead issue?
Would it not seem more appropriate to point to a more universally accepted approach, such as humanitarian aid? There are more supporters of humanitarian aid than of an imperialistic, trigger-happy super power.
With these few facts in mind, how should we approach this impending war? It is arguable that the success of this war, regardless of its outcome, rests largely on the acceptance of participating nations’ citizens back home. Let us not forget the invaluable lesson taught by Vietnam: war is not won solely with heavy artillery and explosions, but with a combination of might and will, something that an unsupported war will surely lack.
This has become less about the issues, weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity, as it has about the moral implications of such an undertaking. Given the United States’ official stance, its lack of support from not only its own citizens (though granted, the majority seems in favor) but also purported allies and the suspicion by many of ulterior motives, the question arises: is it just to press on with this war?
On the one hand, it would be a great victory for not only the U.S. and its allies, but also for diplomatic intervention itself, were the conflict settled by a peaceful resolution. However, on the other hand, one must accept the nature of the world and man, and realize that, likely, this war will and must happen. It must because President Bush has already committed himself and the country, verbally and by use of military strategy, to do something, anything. At this point, withdrawal would be the political equivalent of running away with our tails between our legs.
With that, it seems we have hit our mark. The use of force or, for that matter, the promise of an expelled Saddam Hussein as a byproduct of this venture is not what unsettles the masses. We have entered this affair under dubious pretenses and our current goals betray the potentially noble cause of such an intervention.
Few disagree that Hussein is an unfit leader. Few disagree Iraq probably has or has had weapons of mass destruction. Few disagree that Hussein is guilty of atrocities committed against humanity. Few disagree that action should be taken against him. Many disagree how to accomplish this goal.
There is no wiggle-room to back out of the proceedings, and yet, the wills of the participants do not appear to be with the cause. With a situation such as this, we will soon find ourselves fighting two wars: one in the crowded streets of Baghdad and the other in our conscience
by Jermaine Smith
As our country and its choice few allies inch ever closer to what seems an inevitable showdown in Iraq, the voices of millions around the world have risen above the deafening drums of war to signify, arguably, the first mass world effort against war.
However, the question remains: what is the purpose of this conflict? What element pits some, myself included, against the popular vote to enter into war? Evidence is presented almost daily to support a use of force and yet, even with this, a substantial minority are not keen on the idea. Others find the verification overwhelming and eagerly anticipate the confrontation, cursing the delay.
Perhaps it is time to sit down and review the facts.
The first Bush administration initiated this confrontation over a decade ago, sending inspectors into Iraq to uncover weapons of mass destruction. The inspections never took place without Iraqi interference and, thus, the results were inconclusive and the entire process a complete waste of time. Curiously, there was never a follow up on this failed attempt to relieve Iraq of its weapons, which, as our government reminds us everyday, pose “an immediate threat to our country, our freedom and our way of life.”
That is, no one followed up until now.
Enter 2001, and nearly the first full year in office for current President George W. Bush. Terrifying images from the September 11th attacks linger fresh in the mind of all Americans, and much support and empathy pours from around the world. President Bush has vowed to apprehend and bring to justice all who aided in the most tragic day in recent American history. The United States subsequently attacks and raids Afghanistan in a (still) fruitless attempt to bring to justice the chief culprit, a one Osama Bin Laden.
President Bush, in his honorable attempt to bring stability and a sense of security back to our country, has now set out on a mission to, essentially, rid the world of “evil” and those who would collaborate and bring to fulfillment an attack on democracy (read: the United States). This evil includes, specifically, Saddam Hussein.
Yes, this point is worth repeating as it is often lost on many: the U.S. has stated repeatedly, officially, that the conflict is NOT with the citizens of Iraq, but their dictatorial leader, Hussein.
Hussein has developed (reportedly), housed (allegedly) and has no qualms with using (supposedly) weapons of mass destruction, which, as we all know, is in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441. Hussein has repeatedly interfered with the inspections, enforced by the United Nations, which would clear the nation of any wrongdoings.
In addition, it is a well-known and documented fact that Hussein has ordered the torture, blackmail and, ultimately, murder of many of his own citizens. These crimes against humanity, unquestionably, must cease immediately. That point, it seems, the world receives well.
However, that is not the reason our President gives for going to war.
As it stands, the official position of the Bush administration seems to deal predominantly with the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of the Iraqi government and, more specifically, the ability of these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists.
While this certainly could be a viable threat, has it not been a threat for at least the past decade? It is undeniable that this sudden interest in security arose from the 9/11 attacks, but is that justification for immediate and forceful action on a seemingly dead issue?
Would it not seem more appropriate to point to a more universally accepted approach, such as humanitarian aid? There are more supporters of humanitarian aid than of an imperialistic, trigger-happy super power.
With these few facts in mind, how should we approach this impending war? It is arguable that the success of this war, regardless of its outcome, rests largely on the acceptance of participating nations’ citizens back home. Let us not forget the invaluable lesson taught by Vietnam: war is not won solely with heavy artillery and explosions, but with a combination of might and will, something that an unsupported war will surely lack.
This has become less about the issues, weapons of mass destruction and crimes against humanity, as it has about the moral implications of such an undertaking. Given the United States’ official stance, its lack of support from not only its own citizens (though granted, the majority seems in favor) but also purported allies and the suspicion by many of ulterior motives, the question arises: is it just to press on with this war?
On the one hand, it would be a great victory for not only the U.S. and its allies, but also for diplomatic intervention itself, were the conflict settled by a peaceful resolution. However, on the other hand, one must accept the nature of the world and man, and realize that, likely, this war will and must happen. It must because President Bush has already committed himself and the country, verbally and by use of military strategy, to do something, anything. At this point, withdrawal would be the political equivalent of running away with our tails between our legs.
With that, it seems we have hit our mark. The use of force or, for that matter, the promise of an expelled Saddam Hussein as a byproduct of this venture is not what unsettles the masses. We have entered this affair under dubious pretenses and our current goals betray the potentially noble cause of such an intervention.
Few disagree that Hussein is an unfit leader. Few disagree Iraq probably has or has had weapons of mass destruction. Few disagree that Hussein is guilty of atrocities committed against humanity. Few disagree that action should be taken against him. Many disagree how to accomplish this goal.
There is no wiggle-room to back out of the proceedings, and yet, the wills of the participants do not appear to be with the cause. With a situation such as this, we will soon find ourselves fighting two wars: one in the crowded streets of Baghdad and the other in our conscience
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home