Continuing where I left off, I'll address a couple of different outlooks on the war. So strap on your helmets, grip your Dubya dolls tightly, and away we go!
It seems there are two schools of thought. The first goes something like this: Saddumb Husinsane was a threat to our national security. He had WMDs and had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. He made an attempt on the life of George H.W. Bush (thanks to CZJA for reminding me of this). He openly called for jihad and terrorism against the United States on Iraq's government-controlled television. He had ties to Al-Killya, though we're unsure how deep those roots went. He had a long history of contention with us, and he repeatedly violated the cease-fire with the U.S. that ended the first Gulf War. He had the ability and the means for aiding and abetting terrorist strikes against Americans. Finally, he was a destabilizer in an already unstable region where American interests were at stake. The fruition of his pan-Arab ambitions would have constituted further chaos in the Middle East. Thus an invasion of the country and his subsequent overthrow was justified completely.
Now for the second perspective: Saddumb was a brutal, demonic dictator who raped, plundered, and tortured his people for decades. He was a monster of the worst sort, and Iraqis lived under a brutal yoke of oppression during his rule. The Iraqis deserved freedom just like that of Americans. They deserved a representative form of government, and the rule of law--not life under the maniacal whims of a hitlerian devil. Active involvement in the liberation of enslaved peoples is the United States' moral duty. Iraqis needed our help, and they were entitled to it. Thus deposing Saddumb and instituting a republican government in Iraq was justified and honorable.
Some subscribe to one or the other of these views, while some believe they overlap. As for me, I find no fault with the first line of logic. In fact, I supported early phases of the current Iraq war for these very reasons. I believe overthrowing Saddumb and his murderous sons and regime was a good thing, and I'm proud the United States took him out. I believe his political demise makes us safer. As a brief digression, I also agree with the Afghanistan campaign, finding it just and moral.
But those arguing in the war's favor lose me when they launch into the second approach detailed above. Here's my rationale:
1. I'm not convinced Iraqis deserve freedom. Perhaps that sounds cruel; I'm just being honest. Since Saddumb first exerted power, I've seen little evidence that Iraqis have a genuine hunger for liberty. This was not a situation reminiscent of Revolutionary America, in which the colonists rose up and demanded that the British "Bugger off!" No, this was a scenario in which the United States did all of the dirty work. We didn't aid in a rebellion; there was no rebellion. If not for us, Iraq still would languish in misery, and no one would care. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Islam. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lies in the heart of a region with no history of liberty. Primarily, this is a corollary of Islam. A prevailing characteristic of this warped religion is intolerance. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of action and religion and association--these concepts have no meaning within sharia law. None whatsoever. Liberty and Islam have the same compatibility as oil and water, or Bill Clinton and a chastity belt. So take a geographical realm with no historical conception of freedom, add to that a religion that is the antithesis of the very idea, and you have astronomical odds working against you, in terms of the construction of a stable and successful representative government within that framework.
3. Given the odds of success, I believe the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives in this endeavor is unconscionable. Even if I thought we'd triumph in the long term, Iraqi freedom is not worth the deaths of my fellow countrymen. Not to me.
4. I do not accept the argumentation that America is duty-bound in divesting other countries of their demigod totalitarians. I don't see it as our moral obligation or constitutional mandate. Nor do I think this worldview is representative of our Founding Fathers' outlook. How does one harmonize such a perspective with scripture? Jesus Christ, Himself, did not liberate humanity from temporal slavery and burdensome governments, though he held untold power and influence in the palm of His hand. Certainly, He could have done this. Yet He did not. So a condemnation of America for turning from this primrose path requires criticism of almighty God's own actions. The short of it is this: if He did not choose this tack, why should we assume that He expects it of us?
5. If liberating Iraq and rebuilding the country for its people's betterment was necessary and wonderful--since Husinsane abused his people--then someone please clear things up for me: why single out Saddumb for toppling, and why stop with him? We see evils perpetrated against innocents all over the world, today. Government-sponsored murder and terror is neither unique to Iraq nor the Middle East. We find it in China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Sudan, and Somalia, just as we witness it in Iran, Syria, and any number of other Islamic dystopias. So following this train of logic, consistency demands that we invade and crush the wicked governing bodies of all these countries, and more. If you're rolling your eyes by this point, rest assured that I'm just filling in the plot others have outlined.
The focus has shifted from overthrowing a madman who was a direct threat to our national security, to rebuilding Iraq and providing its people with freedom in abundance--theoretically, at least. The first was a great idea; the second is far more problematic and inconsistent in its investiture.
No comments:
Post a Comment