One of the reasons that the Neoconservatives are wrong that unilateral war can be used for good, for spreading democracy, is that war brings out the worst in human beings, making some of them sadists and racists. Sometimes it is necessary to fight a war to defend oneself. An elective war is always a mistake. It twists one's own society, and someone else's as well. More...
February 04, 2005
An Elective War is Always a Mistake
From Informed Comment:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So freeing millions would never be Ok if we aren't attacked? How about stopping genocide in the Sudan, or Kosovo, oe Rwanda? Seems like we should have done those things, but Juan says no I guess. Pretty damn racist and self indulgent I think.
"Elective War" has a wide accepted definition a bit different than you are imagining. It comes from the statement "War should only be the last resort." An Elective War is a war initiated when there were other options available. At the time, there were acceptable options available. The UN had a team in Iraq looking for WMDs. They were pretty close to the right answer. The Bush Administration didn't think the inspections could be effective and went ahead anyway, contrary to most of the rest of the world. One could also argue that Sadaam presented an insufficient justification for war because at best he threatened only his immediate neighbors. So Juan's statement.
Ok, I'm sorry I wan't clear. I wasn't actually meaning Iraq explicitly - but looking to the future - or the past - in allowing the Soviet Union to more or less enslave through their proxies all of Eastern Eurpoe, were we morally wrong? Or Chile in the 60s? I was looking at a more philosophical take. If we have the power for good, shouldn't we use it? Or do we let millions suffer while we live the good life? Seems kind of racist to me to write off a lot of the world and say tough luck, you've got a srewy dictator.
Nice blog BTW, and I love reading viewpoints that differ from mine.
I do understand your point. This is a difficult question. I guess I always try to answer this one by trying to remove my own perspective from it. No I wouldn't want to live in eastern Europe. Do we know for sure what the eastern Europeans felt? I don't think the average eastern European had much time for politics. Many were starving after WWII and their governments were in shambles.
Stalin was a pretty bad dude and I'm sure many figured out things could have been better. The worst part was they didn't benefit as much from the Marshall Plan as the rest of Europe. So they entered the second half of the century growing at a pace far slower than the rest of the world. Freedom and oppression was pretty routine for these folks before during and since the fall of the USSR.
I think it's poetic justice that most of the client states of the USSR were and still are better off economically that Russia after the fall.
The other side of the issue is the cost of another war. England and France would have been very little help. It would have been the US up against a 10 million man army fighting in its own neighborhood. Conventional warfare, I think the US would have had a tough time pulling it off. Drop the Bomb on Moscow so they give up East Germany? Kill millions to free 100's of millions? Did the eastern Europeans want another war? I think the answer was no.
I think there is an obligation of a people who are oppressed to lead the rebellion. There was noted rebellions, but they were small and/or crushed quickly. Determined rebellions however cannot be stopped.
While we have the power for good, we have to look at cost and benefit as well. And no government goes to war for altruism. The Civil War was more about economics than slavery. I don't believe for the minute the reason were in Iraq is for the people. It's about oil. There are other reasons, but if oil wasn't part of it, we wouldn't be there with the commitment we made.
Post a Comment