My Position Against The Positions For This War.

This is clearly a sensitive subject, and I appreciate the fact that strong feelings run both ways. What I don't appreciate is my arguments against this war being marginalized by those who immediately respond by telling me that I am un-patriotic, citing the deaths of past US soldiers as support for their condemnation of me, or merely deismissing anything I have to say on the subject, including news reports, because they have decided I am biased...I will deal with the whole bias later. Another eecent development has been the trend to dismiss my position as being the result of years of studying this subject...an interesting twist, I will grant you, but hardly worhty of reufutation. I thought it best to give the fullest reasoning behind my position in a separate thread, rather than turn every thread I post in into a personal attack...for being consistent in my stance, apparently something only one side of this argument can claim without it being 'biased'.

If you want to respond with the standard un-American crap, it's your right, but I will not respond unless you back it up. If you want to debate the issues intelligently, on their merits, great. I am just tired of childish remarks wishing I would leave the country because my version of that country is different than theirs, as is my method of fighting for it.

I will try to address the main argumets for the war, and why I fel that they don't measure up, but first I want to clarify two points...if you disagree with me on either of these two points you can skip the rest of my post and argue those, for they are the foundation of anything I am going to state, and I hold them to be self-evident.

A) War is not something for which both those for and against have equal onus to prove their positions. War is, and always should be, a very last resort. I do not state this as an emotional conviction, nor as evidence of my liberal bias ( I am not liberal, for ex.)..and have in fact supported wars in the past. Moreover I have devoted much of my academic life, personally and professionally in studying the history of warfare, the international relations surrounding it, and the philosophy and ethics of same; and almost without exception every significant 'expert', from Sun Tzu through Clausevitz up to the present day states that most wars have been unnecessary, fought improperly, and have almost universally been at the cost of the many for the benefit of the few.

With this in mind they place the highest possible standard on justifying a war...and to suggest that the same sandard should be applied for the position of avoiding a war is ludicrous. To assume a lesser standard of certainty for starting a war destined, for right or wrong, to cost many lives than we would for the conviction of a petty criminal is absurd, and this is not my position alone, it is backed by almost everyone who has ever set paper to pen about the subject and been recognized as an expert for those writings.

B) The United States does not possess any justification to consider itself the moral authority of the world beyond the ancient principle of might is right...In other words, our economic and technological strengths are not linked to some sort of moral superiority which we can use to judge other nations. We have neither the track record to assume such a claim, nor indeed is such a leap in reasoning ( economic & technological strength backed by military might = moral/cultural superiority ) considered anything but the sophmoric rationalization of the jinogoist.

It was that same reasoning which lead to the colonization of Africa, etc. by those in Europe who made the same error of judgement, one which we have been disamayed/amused by for generations...To return to that kind of thinking is terifying, and to rationalize it by stating that our avowed means of excercising our assumed superiority will differ is to miss the point. The thinking is wrong; what you do with the position of authority once you assume it because you have the guns to do so is both insignificant morally, and a slippery slope practically. It should be noted that the original Europeans to bring such a mindset to Africa did so largely out of the purest, if delluded, of motives ( Dr. Livingston, for ex.) The problem with the assumption that you are better than everyone else presents itself in many ways, not all of which are immediately apparent, but, like anything else in human history, will eventually be used to profit those who can profit by it, merely because they can.

Okay...those are the foundations for my reasoning: we have no right to assume we are right/better merely because we are we...and the burden of proving their position lies with those who would go to war rather than those who would oppose it.

Argument For War 1) ...9-11...

The premise for this argument is two-fold: That terrorism is a form of warfare which, if sponsored by another nation's government, can and must be seen as an attack from that government upon the victim of the attack, and can therefore be reacted to with coventional defense...and that Iraq's government sposored the 9-11 attack.

The first argument is a tricky one, but one with which I basically agree. It isn't tricky in it's moral grounds, but in how it is proven to be so. For example, Timothy McVeigh was an American...his nation, or region, or state are not held accountable for his actions...and had he set off his bomb in Toronto rather than Oklahoma, I doubt we would be seeing it as an American attack on Canada...we would see it as the actions of an individual, or individuals with their own agendas/problems with sanity/morality etc. This despite the fact that McVeigh had at one time been a member of our armed forces...would it turn out that one of the 9-11 attackers was a 'former' member of the Iraqi armed forces, what conclusions could we draw from that? Would it be different from those we would draw about McVeigh? If so, and you agree with my 2nd Principle, why?

So the problem is with what and where you consider a link to exist between individuals and governments. I think that those links can be drawn, it is just a difficult process, and Principle 1 would mean that it must be made before it can be considered self-defense.

The second point, that such a link has been drawn, is where this really falls apart. There are those who claim that the evidence is there, but that those who oppose the war are just choosing not to see it. Let me first say that if it were proven that Saddam were behind 9-11, it would be irresponible of the American government to allow him to continue to be in a position where he could enact more 9-11s. I am not choosing to not see the evidence because i am against the war, I am against the war because I have not seen the evidence...and the vast majority of rest of the world feels the same. To assume that everyone else is being disingenuous about this merely to support their anti-Americanism or fill their pockets is while only the Good Ol' USA and it's allies are seeing clearly is both myopically geo-cenric and silly. It would mean that other world leaders are immune from morality, were somehow acting the part in the post 9-11 support we had worldwide, and were looking the other way when they supported us in '91, or with Afghanistan.

It doesn't make sense on an international level..and to further assume that they would risk the wrath of the most powerful country in the world, merely to fulfill some petty concern is assinine..For example, Canada has supported the US in almost every action it has made, ever...( except 1812... )..and stands to gain nothing from the position it has taken with regard to the US, while simultaneously stands to risk a great deal...and yet those supporting the notion that the evidence is there would have you believe that the Canadian government is suddenly so intent on snubbing the Americans that it has not only overcome it's post 9-11 outpouring of support ( anyone remember all the stories about the re-routed planes?) , it has risked upsetting it's far and away greatest trading partner knowing itslf to be in the wrong. Does this make sense to anyone? Canada sent troops into Afghanistan...has sent troops all over the world as peace-keepers..( in fact a Canadian got the Nobel Peace prize for coming up with the idea of UN peace-keeping troops re: Suez )..and has always shown itself to be very willing to support wars it deems just ( For ex. Canada had a much higher enlistment/service rate in both world wars that the US)..But now they have thrown that all away just for the opportunity to tell it's greatest neigbour " Up yours!" !?!? Ridiculous.

Personally, I also have never seen the evidence...I have seen evidence that you can connect some Iraqis to some groups we would deem terrorists, but then I have seen evidence to connect the US government with the Contras...a group which would qualify under the heading of terrorists by any standard, if you know their record. I have seen no evidence that there is any connection between the government of Iraq and the terrorists who perpetrated 91-- at the time in any way. Certainly not enough to go to war in support of. I welcome anyone who can provide such a direct link: In fact, if iy is proven that Iraq was behind 91--, I am in favour of getting Saddam out of powrer, and war would almost without doubt be a reasonablr, if not the best,means of doing so, and I would support it.



Argument For War 2) Pre-emptive or Preventative Self Defense

There is historical cause to dismiss this argument, and I will present it, but the usual response to those facts is that Things Have Changed since 9-11...so I will go back, not to the verbiage used by the US and UN when they defined the above as acts of aggression, but the reasoning behind their stance.

Pre-emption or preventative self defense is as old as the hills...The Romans decried the potential threat represented by every neighbour before they invaded and conquered it. The USSR did the same...as did the Germans in the 30's. The reason it was wrong was not linked to the difference between conventional and terrorist threats; the deaths of either are equally real, and it should be noted that the definition was enacted post WWII, when the world was quite aware of the potential for foreign aggression to have significant cost on civilian populations. The reason it was deemed wrong was not because of an underestimation of the effect underestimating an enemy could have...and to assume that Europe, of all places, would fail to realize that potential dangers can become real ones quicly, or can have horrific cost is to ignore history again.

The reason it was deemed as aggression are threefold, the forst of which is found in my Principle no. 1...those starting a war are held to the highest standard of justification. The second is because of the fact that this has probably been the single most drawn 'card' powerful governments used to incite their people to support acts of aggression, and someone posted a quote from Goerring to that effect in another thread. I would greatly appreciate whoever it was repeating that post if you read this.

I would like to take this moment to addrss another knee-jerk response that usually rears it's head about now: " To even compare the United States with ________ is riduculous." I would state a few things to refute that claim, and the assumption of it's perpetuation. 1) None of those nations, not even nazi germany, had a populace that believed it was what we now recognoze it to be at the time of it's initial steps down the road of imperialism, The Roman Republic was, it should be noted, the beacon of responsible government for the rest of the Classical world long before it became that world's conqueror...The populace of Nazi Germany did not, by nd large, think that they were heading down the road they went when they supported it's governemnt's demands for their loyalty in dealing with threats at home and abroad, they thought they were patriots. The USSR was initially formed FOR the people, not agsinst the...it is both dellusional and a repetition of history to assume that what was possible elsewhere is not possible, in one form or another, here at home for the same reson all of those people would have dismissed it: Because it's us, and we're not like that. 2) It is contrary to Principle 2 to think that we are above that merely because we are American. What is more, it is a misreading or selective reading of history to suggest that the US is immune to looking after what it thinks is it's own best interests/for it's own profit at the cost of to thers, and varnishing the whole process in a wave of patriotic fervour. If you accept that we have done so in the past, why would it be assumed that we could not be doing so now, when we have the greatest ability to?

And the fact that we ( might) not seek to 'colonize' or 'conquer' other nations in a fashion identical to the Romans or the Nazis is also to both miss the point, and overlook history...The Romans conquered because the land was what they wanted...the Nazis were also largely after a different kind of domination...it could easily be argued that we seek different gains, ones largelywhich do not require long term occupation, and indeed might not justify the expense of same.

Athens around the time between the Persian Wars and the Peleponisian War might be a great parallel: They were a democracy, and the foremost economic power in the region. There were various forms of governments active throughout the Greek world at the time,monarchies, oligarchies, and others. The Athenians were also a society largely occupied with/stressing economic power, and dependant on trade, unlike other city states which prioritized different things. Athens assumed that their system was better, and noted that the absence of democracies in other cities cut into Athens ability to profit from trade in those regions...solution? They invaded other city states and imposed 'democracy' upon them...whether they wanted it or not....and leave having set up a form of government similar to it's own. The fact that much of the population of those cities fought against them didn't dissuade the Athenians in their task...and they were hailed as 'tyrants' throughout the Greek world for their actions. Tyrants don't have to want your land to tell you how to live, they merely have to tell you how to live.

Okay, getting back to the argument about pre-emtion or prevetative self-defense...As I was sayingm this has been the most abused ratuionalization for war, and unless, like every other nation in history, you assume that it can't apply to us because we're us, then the dangers, whether now or in the future should be apparent, and we have deemed those dangers to be greater than those risked by not acting upon 'potential' dangers when they were still 'potential'.

The 3rd argument against this stance is the unlimited nature of the perception of 'potential', even if it's inceptors are genuine. What it means is that anyone who we deem to be a potential threat becomes a real threat...and that is a slippery slope beyond reckoning. Consider that we have stated that we will not tolerate any other nation in the world becoming our rival in terms of military strength, because we would see that as a potential threat , and you might begin to see the quicksand of pre-emptive or preventative warfare we would be entering were we to go down that road...Then add to it the fact that our government has been neither perfect nor unbiased in it's perception of threats in the past ( Domino Theory, etc.) and you might see the reasoning behind holding everyone, even us, to the standard we held the world to before the reality of potential threats were realized on our own doorstep..It was easier when it the threat, real or imagined, was always 'over there', but it still applies now that it's here.

Argument For War 3)...Saddam is A Murderous Tyrant.

Answer...yes, he is. What does that have to do with us, nos. 1 and 2 being untrue? Another quick point...please deal with these one at a time...People often use circular logic for these arguments, ie...He's a threat to the US...and when that's argued, they say..and besides, he's a tyrant...and when asked why that's our business, reverting to ..because he's a threat to the US. One argument at a time..If he's a real threat to us, his despotism is irrelevent. If he's not, it's not our business because he's a threat, it has to be argued that it's our business for other reasons...and that's where I want to begin.

If we assume that we are not better than everyone else, an assumption that much of the rest of the world would find typical of Americans, but I have more faith in us, then it would have to be assumed that intervening in the activities of another nation, if not a threat to the intervener in and of themselves ( which, as stated, makes this argument moot) is a reflection of the common morality, ie global, and is furthermore seen by the world to be the only means of enacting that global morality. I will leave aside the ( huge and valid) argument against the supposition that moral homogenization is practical, possible, or defensable to concentrate on the present situation: That we are not doing this in defense of global will, but of our own. The globe neither agrees that this is the proper action, nor has given the US the licence to export it's own standards abroad, nor enforce what we percieveto be the 'real' intent of the globe. In that respect, when we do so as we see fit, we are no different from others who have done so, like those who spread "christianity and Civilisation" to the 'primative' tribes of Africa and the Americas, largely against their will. Please don't argue that they were 'improved' thus...it insults the millions who died in the process, and would also only be valid were you to agree that it would be ok for Sweden to invade, enslave, and decimate the US if the result were that in a couple of hunderd years we would equal their ratings in those "Standard of Living' studies...In other words, it's a silly point.We have been among the biggest, if not the biggest proponents of nations surrendering their right to determine what is in their best interests in the international community when that same community disagreed with the actions which followed close upon that determination. We felt sympathy for European powers who had invested untold millions and countless man years in developing the Suez but felt cheated out of their due reward by the emergence of Egypt, but still told them to surrender any military operations to reclaim same...and avenge the deaths of their citizens killed by 'terrorists ' in that region...in the interests of supporting the global will...We called it 'imperialism and colonialism' to counter that global will in ti's own interests. There are countless other instances where we compelled other nations to make that sacrifice...to surrender something of thie ability to enact their international interests ( in the commission sense) for the sake of what the world wanted...as voiced by the UN. Now we are indignant that the world expects us to do the same. It doesn't wash.

So to cite Saddam's murderous reign as a justification for our actions, when in defiance of most of the global majority, is to say that we know better...jingoism at it's finest. The globe, which doesn't like Saddam, as '91 showed, sees that either there are better ways, and whether we agree with that or not isn't the oint, unless the only thing which distinguishes us from those in a similar position in the past is that we are the US, and they weren't.I won't even get into the argument that we export our morality with great selectivity, usually reserving those worthy of our standards to those occupying regions we have interest in, like Panama, or Iraq...nor will I refute ths argument by citing the popular opposition the US has so far faced in the Iraq it is freeing, nor the US's history of supporting 'tyrants' against popular...yes Hayes, not always greater of two evils, but popular opposition who just happened to lean the other way during the Cold War. And if anyone even mentions the Kurds to support our honorable war stance, I will try not to yell out 1991-2.

Argument For War 4) WMD

There are three premises here...that Saddam has them, that Saddam having them is an intolerable situation, and that it is up to the US to determine who can and who can't have the same toys as it has, and when to go to war to support that determination.

1) That he has them...I refer the reader to argument 3...The world hasn't seen proof that he has them to such a degree that he represents an immediate threat. I honestly believ ethat he probably does have some...I believe that virtually every nation on earth has them or is trying to get them, though none have as many as we do..but I do not have proof, nor have I seen proof which counters the UN's assertion that the problem is still under control, and that war is an overreaction, with significant repercussions. What proof we have presented was largely faked.

2) Why does SH having them constitue an immediate threat worth going to war over? He wasn't that grave a threat when we gave him some and showed him how to use others a couple of decades back...he isn't so insane that he used them agsinst us in '91...or so far now, though I think that, if he has them, and ( at our instigation) he is in imminent danger, he will use them. We used them in '45 with less justification. But unless we deprive him of the one thing he values above all else, his power, he has no history of showing that he is a raving lunatic hell bent on apocalypse...He has used them in a limited capaciy against what he ( accurately) saw as localised theats to his regime, a lesson he owes to us with Iran, but he has shown no lack of reality regarding the repercussions of his using them against someone like Israel or the US...again, '91...didn't do it.


3) How did we make the leap from being by far the world's greatest user of WMD...Hiroshima and Nagasaki...to being the arbiter of who is and who isn't responsible enough to have them? I would concede the point were we merely one voice among the global majority, but in this case we are not. Aside from jingoisitic assertions that I am insane to equate _________ with having them to the US, or whatever ( ignoring the WMD body count of history) , please tell me why we get to decide who can and who can't have what we have? Other than because we want to and we can...And none of the UN rulings which we someohow purport to be supporting while defying the UN overall, calling it irrelevent, and ignoring allies who stand in breach of same..none of them call for war. They call for 'severe consequences'...whose severity is to be determined by the UN security council , not the US.

Argument For War 5) Might IS Right...

For those of you who look forward to a Pax Americana, who relish in the role of The American Empire, I would say this...You do exactly to the issue of freedom and the inalienable rights of man what the Nation of Islam does to the issue of racism: You legitimize it's past abuses by assuming the power of abusing it when it is availbale, while having decreed the evil of those who have doen so themselves in the past. We were founded AGAINST the idea of might is right...our Declaration of Independance stands firmly opposed to the very idea of the US telling the world what o do because it can. You say that we don't disagree ith Hitler in principle, merely in practice...You would have us become what we have historically held in contempt, and have saud that,at the end of the day, the great Experiment has failed...we are nothing but a newer British Empire, the same wolf in a different sheep's clothes. I call you a traitor to the idea that is the United States, merely for the cause of power, wealth, and security...the same causes all other empires have had. I believe in the idea of the United States...I have not given up on the Great Experiment...that is the Unted States that I fight for, and I do it here and now, by opposing this war.


( Will continue in part II...much shorter part, for those few of you still reading.)

 

( continued)

Thomas Jefferson said that is is the duty...not the right, or the priviledge, but the duty of every citizen in a free society to challenge the authority of the government when he or she thinks that that government is wrong. History tells us that those in poer will, and almost always have ( exceptions: Cincinnatus , George Washington, Gandhi.) extend their power as much as possible, if only to make doing what they think is right easier or more efficient. The check to that natural inclination in a responsible society is the will of it's people: power can only be given by what we accept, and when we accpet without question the use or extension of that power because it comes from those in authority, we relinquish our responsibility as a free people.

I will not do that...not for this war, or to ease the fear i feel in the face of terrorism. That very idea of freedom defines who we are; give that up and all that defines us are lines on a map. I will not see the noble deaths of soldiers in our past as a reason to silence my objections, but will yell all the louder for them. I am honored by their courage, and I am secure enought oadmit that I get teary when I watch the first 20 minutes or the last 5 minutes of Saving Private Ryan...and not just because i had 3 relatives in D-Day...but because I am overwhelmed by those men's capacity to put their lives at risk for what they thought was right...and i mean that on both sides. I know from experience that I have immediate courage..the kind where you have to act without thinking...but I seriosuly doubt my ability to, as they did day after day, knowingly go into danger and death. I hope I could do it, I will even more hopefully never have to knw...But I refuse to have men like that make that kind of sacrifice when i think it is unnecessary, or in a cause that i think is unjust. That is the greatest way i know of supporting those who have died for our freedom; to ensure that it continues as it was intended,

For those of you who will say, and have said, fine, your idead are noble, but this is the real world, I would say this: That is a defensible position, but not one I agree with. Those who do agree with sacrificing ideald for the sake of practicality include Hitler ..( whose favorite quotation was from Goehte..: Ideals and theories are balck and white...the real world is green") Stalin...( You have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette) and Mussolini ( Don't talk to me about morality...talk to me about reality.)I stand by the idea that ideals themselves are what is most important...the practicality extends so far as enacting you ideals, if you are free...or to quote PatrickHenry " I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

 

I agree that it is long...and I apologize for all the typos...and I yearn for the return of the edit function.

Codell...it stemmed from getting home this afternoon and seeing many threads I had posted in regressing to attacks on my stance, so I thought that rather than make every thread I post in into a defense/attack of MacBeth, I would try and summarize my points in ine thread so it doesn't have to occupy the time of those who aren't interested. I actually tried to limit my arguments for the sake of others' patience, and left out some points I wanted to make. But I didn't take all that long, in truth, although it could hardly be called knee-jerk. I thought a bit about it while I walked to the store, and stated to 'type' ( my version, anyways) when I got back. The typing took about an hour, all told. This is just about the only place where I type fpr myself, for obvious reasons...

I meant to include stuff on my 'bias'..past positions on related issues, etc. but got tired...i might add it later.

I would greatly appreciate your explaining where and how you disagree with my positions as stated. Seriously.


Peace


JAG

 

Sino...You have reminded me of another argument for the war that I have issue with, not your assertion that we are inherently better, or that thinking we are better/being better ( depending upon your position) allows us to tell others how to live, but the It's a Done Deal Argument.

By that defintion, ie that we should not oppose a war once it has begun, you throw away the ability of the people to protest something if A) They change their mind, B) They acquire more information, or C) They didn't support it in the first place. The idea that we do a disservice to those fighting by arguing that they should not be risking their lives, or taking others, if we don't feel it's in a just cause is undefensible, and contrary to the priniples of how to fight a war: Don't let the war itself re-define your objectives/strategy/principles of engagement. If, as it is, the Primary principle of engagement of a democratic/republican military force is to uphold the will of it's people, ti suggest that we should suspend the ability to reason in order to determine our will because we are already engaged is a formula for long term military disaster, and political/civil apathy.

 

Why was the impotence of the UN exposed in exact conjunction with their disageement with us? They disagreed with other nations in the past...often based on our use of the veto we now hold so much in contempt...( Could whoever posted the list of US vetos please,please, please do so again?)...We told other nations who thought that they were right and the Un was wrong that they represented the will of the world, and therefore couldn't be wrong...

This is the argument I have the most issue with...and the world rolls it collective eyes at the most. The United States which for decades was the greatest proponent of the UN as will of the world,( when it agreed with us) unconditionally, and one of the greatest users of the veto power now says that the rules no longer apply because We don't think the Un is right, and We don't like the use of the veto...even when the UN is, as it is designed, reflecting the will of the world according to every poll/survey taken.

The convenience of the timing of the exposure of the UN's irrelelevance is overwhelming.

 

I think you are missing the entire principle of why/how the UN was formed...unless you think it was supposed to be an arm of the United States State Department, as Kruschev used to maintain.

In plain view...the Un is supposed to represent the power of the global community over the desires of the minority, no matter how powerful...the world's majority was against this war...France ( and Germany, and Russia...etc.) oposed that war which, however minor or major you think they are, or whatever you say their motives were, was clearly a reflection of the global majority. The UN did it's job...the fact that we don't like being in the global minority, or the fact that we couldn't 'persuade' enough of that majority to agree with us, or the fact that the UN supported the global majority as it is supposed to doesn't justify us pulling a Kruschev, and calling their disagreement 'irrelevent'...

 

Actually, not true...we were far and away the last industrialized Western power to uphold the practice of slavery...As a matter of fact, the Royal Navy ( British) used to patrol the Atlantic looking to intercept slave ships on their way to America...as well as fight to destroy the Salve-based kingdoms along the Ivory Coast. We may not like it, but we were the bad guy on this issue throughout the rest of the 'civilised' world.