Preemptive Dangers
A mailing list I was on was arguing about Iraq, even though that’s way off its subject. Sombebody posted a message that said, in part
…it is not only within the right of our government to prevent regimes who have demonstrated BOTH the capability AND willingness to harm America or her allies … from doing so, it is her responsibility.
I was about to post a reply but the list’s owner cut off the thread. So, I’m giving myself the last word here:
Does this mean that Al Qaeda had not only the right but the responsibility to attack the World Trade Center since it rightly perceives the US as capable and willing to do it harm? Or, if you don’t like Al Qaeda as an example, how about North Korea, Cuba, or Iran?
The world recognizes the right of a country to defend itself against invasion. Allowing countries to preemptively attack others because another country could attack it — and, frankly, I don’t lie awake at night about Iraq attacking us the way I do about Al Qaeda — lowers the bar to war. We have to be able to live in a world with countries that we despise and fear because that’s the minimal condition for peace.
If war isn’t kept as a nearly unthinkable alternative, it will make peace seem like too much work.
[Did I say “the last word”? Somehow I doubt that. See you in the comments section!]
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Estimates are that there will be a half million Iraqi casualties in the planned invasion. Optimistic estimates place the number of American military deaths at “under 1,000”.
If you believe lives are worth nothing, this is acceptable; if you don’t, it’s not.
BTW, here’s a handy reference for the facts about war with Iraq.
From Johann Hari of the British Independent, a look at Northern Iraq today and all of Iraq after the war:
There is an existing example that demonstrates clearly what will be built. Following the Gulf War, northern Iraq – where the Kurds were sheltering in the mountains from Saddam’s thugs – was not handed back to Baghdad. It became an independent statelet guarded by, yes, US and British military might.
What does it look like 10 years later? Is it governed by another mini-Saddam circa 1980, a cheap pro-American puppet? No. It is a self-determining democracy. It elects, freely, its own leaders. It has freedom of speech and of the press (in Sulaymaniyah alone, there are 138 media outlets, including literary magazines and radio channels). It lives under the rule of law, upheld by both male and female judges.
As Barham Salih, the prime minister of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government in Sulaymaniyah, explained recently: “In 1991, we had 804 schools. Today we have 2,705. We started with one university in Arbil in 1991; today we have three. In 10 years of self-government, we built twice as many hospitals as was built for us in seven decades. Then we had 548 doctors. Today we have 1,870 doctors. I’m not going to tell you that everything is rosy… but it’s remarkable what we have achieved.”
If it were not for US military power, this democratic entity would not have existed for the last 10 years.
It can happen, but only through strength.
I think it’s appropriate to *compare* the two. To *equate* them is an entirely different matter.
I totally agree