Pre-emptive wars
It amazes me in looking at the pictures of looting in Iraq how really quickly everything has gone. From Kuwait to Baghdad in three weeks. I don’t think even the military could have expected the end to come as quickly as it did. However, with that said, was the war right? Does the fact that we won make everything all right? I really don’t know. I’m still torn. Michael Kinsley in Slate wrote on Thursday: “Should we be doing this [waging war on Iraq] despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies? Without the approval of the United Nations? Moral questions: Is it justified to make ‘pre-emptive’ war on nations that may threaten us in the future? When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war? Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently? Does consistency matter? Even etiquette questions: Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn’t it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about “nation-building” in the 2000 campaign?”
Pre-emptive war is difficult to justify except in the most extreme circumstances. Given the Iraqi government’s quick collapse, I wonder how serious of a threat they posed to the United States. Surely not great enough to warrant an attack without the United Nations’ authorization. Without such international support I don’t think a pre-emptive war can ever be justified. Following the United State’s lead, the world would be left with nations creating their own justifications for war. That’s frightening.
And then there’s the issue of the patriotism of people opposed to the war. Since when has patriotism been defined as an expression of blind loyalty to whatever conquest the current administration is leading our nation into? To me patriotism is an expression of national pride. There is little leading up to our invasion of Iraq that we, as Americans, can be proud of. And how hypocritical can the Republicans be for attacking even the mildest questioning of military strategy or foreign policy related to the war in Iraq?
Republicans set a very high standard for patriotism: if you question the President of the United States while our troops are in danger, then you are not patriotic enough. But how do these same Republicans fare under their own standards?
On March 24, 1999, NATO began a strategic bombing campaign that resulted in the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic, a vicious tyrant currently in jail for his crimes against humanity.
Republicans fail their own “patriotism test.” As our troops faced danger overseas, Republicans were strident in their criticism of President Clinton and his foreign policy, even going as far as criticizing the military campaign itself.
Here’s what two patriotic Republicans had to say in support of our troops fighting in Kosovo. President (then-candidate) George W. Bush: “Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. ‘Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said.” [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
Senator Richard Lugar: “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99].
Senator Lugar was wrong. When foreign policy fails, it’s everyone’s problem. Will America be any safer after winning a war against Iraq, or are we creating more disillusioned Arabs willing to die to express their hatred of the United States?
The Pre-emptive wars by SharedThought, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.