Neolib,
My own views are largely that any group of people should be allowed to determine their own fate in their own regions. If they pose a sufficient threat to their neighbors, there may well be trouble. I'm doubtful of the odds that a foreign power…will have much success in bringing fundamental change to any group that has significant cultural and religious opposition to the change.
I agree; the odds are poor. I stated that I would expound on this context when I had more time, so here’s some exposition <g>:
I understand a philosophy of “live and let live” because, at its very nature, it the respects individual rights of a human being. I understand a Libertarian viewpoint because it wants to maximize personal liberties and minimize governmental control over a population. I understand the neo-conservative point of view because it advocates, at least, a position of moral firmness in the face of pacifism. I respect a liberal viewpoint because it attempts to find common ground for the purposes of inclusion rather than exclusion.
We battle under a concept of ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ but this is how our primate brains function. As our societies have expand to encompass more faiths, ideologies and practices, we enlarge the concept of what ‘us’ means. The expansion of NATO to formerly east-block countries blows me away when I think about the history of the last twenty years. How is it possible that those ‘godless commie fascists’ became members of the ‘we’ in NATO?! “No way,” I would have said to anyone. My wildest imagination could not get me there. If you want to state that this would have happen eventually - had we not spent billions during the cold war, I won’t argue. My imagination ill-equips me to argue exactly how long this would have taken to occur.
Our world history contains the threads of justice, and how it evolved to separate heresy and immorality (e.g. adultery) from illegality. This ongoing struggle for justice is many centuries old. I hope we’re not done, nor that we retrace old mistakes.
I tried to find Abraham Lincoln’s quote about treating soldiers in Confederacy as brothers with whom the Union would eventually reconcile -- but this was as close as I could get:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
For me, the germ of the underlying concept that we American citizens should understand the historic bonds the binds us, developed into something more about the world itself. There seemed to me a broadening of the ‘we’ that we talk about, for example ‘Western Civilization’ or ‘Judeo/Christian’ values or ultimately Hindu/Buddhist all-inclusiveness. This had remained a muddled soup in my mind for at least 25 years.
I have never sworn an oath to our Constitution, but I’ve pledge an allegiance to our flag. Of course, I would have no trouble doing so because I value the inherent intent to provide a guarantee of liberties to a nation of immigrants. I would also pledge my strength and convictions to this charter:
To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, [so on and so on.]
Why would we need a UN? Couldn’t the US decide for itself when war was need? Did we really need their help during the Korean War? Are they there to provide moral cover when we’re taking too much flack from our friends or enemies? These are question I’ve asked myself.
My best guess was that we, the world, wanted a public forum to debate issues and find resolutions that didn’t involve war. I know that some on the right view that the UN serves only to weaken our national sovereignty, but in a way, that is its purpose: We, the members and signatories of the UN, would yield to a UN proposal for peace-keepers or observers to avoid an all-out conflict. We would also take council for alternatives to war that gave some minimum compromise between the parties involved.
How does the UN provide justice or a sense of justice to the world? Can it even try?
We set up a justice system by creating an independent judiciary, with an adversarial prosecution by a district attorney, and with evidence evaluated by an impartial jury – in theory at least. In the past, when one country went to war, they were all of the above. This typically does not lead to justice, even when the casus belli seemed just.
Beyond the value of UNICEF, WTO, WHO, etc. at the UN, there is also value in its ability to act like a jury. Yes, prejudiced juries can result in a miscarriage of justice. We’ve all seen this, one way or another. The prosecution does every thing it can, but sometimes there really just isn’t enough evidence to convict.
The current debate on this board seems to revolve around the evidence provided by the Bush administration, the wider consequences of our war with Iraq, and the affects on the region if we cut and run. The justification for going to any war is subsumed by the first item above.
My take: Evidence was fabricated for Iraq’s possession of WDM. Sadam was his own worst enemy in dealing with the US. Left to himself with no UN restriction, he would have rebuilt everything he lost and start a dominance game as soon as he could. The Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south wanted Sadam to pay for his crimes. The Kuwaiti’s had no problem with removing him once and for all. The Saudi’s could play a behind-the-scenes role with money and promises of various types. The Turks didn’t want their hands dirty or a more powerful Kurdish power base, so they would stand back and watch the US fail. The French wanted business and loan repayments, so why would they screw up a meal ticket? The British thought that they could at least contain American adventurism by cooperating. To some, Sadam was a big ugly pimple smack dab in the center of the Middle East’s face, just asking to be popped. <g>
Karl Rove has gotten away with every political crime known to man. I’d guess he convinced everyone that they could slide passed the fabrications and move on to ‘democracy for the Iraqis – and then the rest of the Middle East.’ The Bush administration has been all about a steam-roller approach to political opponents and enemies of the US. Conservatives like this above all else. They’ll say “The real question is what do we do now, cut and run, or give the peace-loving people of Iraq a new and stable democracy. Who’s against a stable democracy?! Only those duggum liberals, that’s who!”
I want the Iraqi’s to have a stable democracy and I’m fairly liberal – believe it or not.
“We vastly overestimated the Bush administration.”
I shouldn’t be too surprised by the above statement. However, I thought Bush was unsuited for the Presidency since he started campaigning for his first term. My imagination could not generate a scenario where such a parochial man would concern himself with world affairs. I even had a difficult time understanding why he would decide to be the governor of Texas unless someone else was going to do the hard work for him. Cheney and Rumsfeld were ostensibly selected to provide a guiding hand, but I think they decided early on that they would need do the hard thinking for Bush and let him golf, fish and watch baseball games, and have a month off in August. I’ll accept that Bush got OK SAT scores, but I still think that his ignorance was bliss, and why would he change things now. Knowing geography and the presidents of other countries is stuff for the State Department and the Sec. of State. “The little people work on the details and clean up the messes.” (my made-up quote)
So neolib, that’s my take on the situation. As far as ‘do we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries,’ my answer is yes, sometimes. I want to do this when we have a consensus within the UN, or if not, within NATO if they decided it is in their strategic interests, or if a strong majority of the American people have decided to so with unbiased facts that are discussed in open forum throughout the duration of the conflict. I don’t feel that we should ever do it under false pretenses.
I wish you well.
P.S.
Inre: the sacrifice of our soldiers. When I was reading through Lincoln’s quotes, I found the quote from the letter that was used in the movie “Saving Private Ryan.” As I get older, I confess that I get more misty-eyed when I read about the sacrifices we’ve made in order to (continue to) have the right to speak our minds and exercise our individual liberties:
"I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom." |
