In a recently televised debate with British MP, George Galloway, Christopher Hitchens stated that if the anti-war movement had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would be the ruler of Kuwait. This struck me as an unfair (but not entirely unexpected) statement regarding the segment of the population that is against the current involvement in Iraq.
The above statement assumes that everyone who is against this war in Iraq was also against the Gulf War in 1991. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth, and the difference in attitude toward the 2 wars lies in the justification for each. The Gulf War was a response to a direct provocation by Iraq. It was a response that was broadly supported throughout the international community, including Arab states.
In contrast, there was no direct provocation for the most recent conflict, and in fact the original justification of imminent threat has been totally discredited. Based on that, it is reasonable to oppose the current conflict, yet have been a supporter of the Gulf War.
Mr. Hitchens considers the case for war in Iraq today to be unimpeachable. If that’s the case and we are to apply the same criteria for invasion to other countries in the region, then who’s next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Does Mr. Hitchens’ contention take into account the fact that Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq on September 12, 2001?
This “new” criteria for starting military conflict is disturbing. Historically, America has been a reluctant participant in wars, choosing to deploy troops only when attacked or in response to the overt malignant actions of others. This was certainly true with WWI and WWII. But now the bar has been lowered to a point where the reasons for armed conflict are nebulous and could be as trivial as a whim. Although Saudi Arabia is probably the largest exporter of terror in the world and its government one of the main reasons for it, we’ll never see this administration handle that situation in the same way that Iraq has been handled. That demonstrates that today’s justification is one of convenience and not one that can be applied across the board.
2 comments:
It's always highly entertaining to read Hutchens, whose command of the English language is magnificent. He, by the way, hates sports, so there is another strike against him.
The key to assessing the moral justification of military interventions lies in the cold domain of mathematical calculation. We need to ask the cost in lives and treasure of taking an action; our leaders are always more than prompt in giving us the benefits. The problem lies in the calculation of the cost. In many of these cases, the costs are not felt immediately; they become like a disinvestment, whose detriment gets spread over a long time; worst yet, it does so in less-than-concrete measures of built up hatred and resentment against us. In the case of Iraq, not only do we face the possibility of getting mired in an on-going implosion of the country, but we have once again sown the seeds of hatred that will be used by fanatics to recruit the next round of killers. Hussein vould have been easily contained, had we given the peacekeepers and the IAEA the slightest support.
I contrast that to the decision to bomb Belgrade, which I totally supported. Slobodan Milosevic was a tyrant who needed to be eliminated. The difference is that Serbia is an European country seeped in the continent's history of modern liberalism. The next generation of Yugoslavs will look at the Milosevic years as a stain in their history. They will not form bridades of suicide bombers to avenge the damnation wrought upon them by the infidel airplanes.
Thanks Rui for your astute comments. I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially regarding the intervention in Belgrade. Isn't it ironic how the right wing media didn't support that use of the military?
Post a Comment