Bluezoo
10-04-2005, 10:53 AM
Pacifism Iraqi Style
by Robert E. Meyer
While driving around town I saw a sign that said something like "Support the troops--bring them home." Unlike Vietnam, I couldn't help thinking that abandoning Iraq wouldn't really end the war, but merely change the geographical location of the battlefield. After all, it was terrorists who struck here first. I know of no Viet Cong attacking American soil, or being trained for that purpose. What about the moral implications when Congress ultimately stopped funding the effort in Southeast Asia? Many people eventually concluded that we didn’t belong there, and I won’t second guess them now. But did the unintended consequences of our pull-out merely enable the Khmer Rouge to exterminate scores of human beings in the killing fields of Cambodia? Was the domino theory really a delusion? Slipping out the back seems tempting, but is often not wise in the long run.
The whole argument about patriotism is moot. Have you ever met anyone who claims to be unpatriotic? I have no idea exactly what someone would have to do to be unpatriotic-- it is apparently undefined. But here’s my proposition: if people say that they support the troops, yet do or say things that jeopardize the troops mission, then the least we can call this is poor judgment.
The noted author and Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis noted that "Christianity has made two efforts to deal with the evils of war; chivalry and pacifism. Neither succeeded, but I doubt if chivalry has had such an unbroken record of failure as pacifism."
Blank–check pacifism is self-defeating. We could all put up yard signs that say "war is not the answer". True enough. But the folks we need to convince are half way around the world lopping people's heads off. We can try unconditional pacifism, but what if you are dealing with a mentality that interprets overtures like this as an indication of weakness, and sees us as a over ripe plum ripe for plunking? How exactly does the state protect its people from that possibility?
Some appeal to religious ethic, reminding us that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers," or "turn the other cheek." These people clearly fail to distinguish between the biblical role of the state( to wield the sword against the evil-doer) versus the duty of the individual (to live as peacefully as possible with all men) . They assume the methods by which the individual and the governing authorities "make the peace", must be identical.
Recently I watched a T.V. documentary, which featured some commentary by Bin Laden. A statement by him near the end of the program which caught my attention, was that the problem for America is that they love life, but we love death. This should warn anyone with ears to hear that we aren't dealing with a mentality that appeals to reason and non-violence.
Consider that prominent leaders, such as John Kerry, have said as recently as 2002 that Hussein had WMD's. In a October 9, 2002, speech to the Senate, Kerry accepted Bush's 'evidence' against Iraq and backed going to war. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States [Bush] the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security," Trying to weasel out of it later, reminds me of a story I heard about some kids organizing a pick-up baseball game.
They debate whether to play the game on their quiet street, or go to the ball diamond a few blocks down the road. One of them reminds the group that last year a sharply hit foul ball damaged the neighbor’s siding, and suggests they go to the field. But a prominent player says that he is going away with his parents later in the day and must be within earshot, thus they decide to stay. They determine the batting order. The first player, not knowing his own strength, hits a fly ball further than he ever did before–right through the neighbors picture window. All players panic and scatter saying, "it’s your fault, you did it.", leaving him to sheepishly retrieve the ball from the neighbor. How is this different from the way some politicians have reacted with Bush.
Look at the logic of saying that the war in Iraq promotes terrorism. If a serial murderer is on the loose, do we say we shouldn’t investigate the crimes or pursue the culprit, since it will only bring out copy cat killers? Do we let a thief continue to wreak havoc on a neighborhood, because if he is caught, it might make all pretty criminals angry, thus proliferating crime? What additional motivation do fanatics need beyond a belief that their own martyrdom will bring them instantly to paradise?
We might proceed with logical questions about whether this conflict violates the principles of the Just War Theory, instead of all these baseless indictments that don’t persuade anyone who isn’t already riding shotgun on the bash Bush bandwagon.
Consider the common arguments against Bush.
Bush lied about WMD's. We must concede that if lying is despicable, then capriciously accusing someone of lying must be comparatively bad also. Notice they choose this approach rather than to say Bush was wrong, the intelligence was faulty, etc. This reveals an ideological knee-jerk response--not a thoughtful conclusion. Why wouldn't Congress try to impeach him if it was provable? Why wouldn't Bush have been devious enough to plant the evidence vindicating him if he was corrupt enough to lie?
The war is exchanging blood for oil. Why not first take it from Kuwait, where it would be like taking a lollipop from a child?
It was revenge for an attempt on Daddy's life. Have they not merely substituted possible motives as the proxy for real evidence?
Bush is a fascist. If Bush really was Hitler's more evil counterpart, you would get the chance to say so publicly only once before being whisked away by jack-booted thugs.
Political decisions are often a choice between lesser and greater evils. History often rebukes a leader for the consequences of the evil chosen, but mitigates or forgets the potential benefits of the evil avoided. Let’s not be so foolish.
http://www.therealitycheck.org/FeaturedWriters/rmeyer100305.htm
by Robert E. Meyer
While driving around town I saw a sign that said something like "Support the troops--bring them home." Unlike Vietnam, I couldn't help thinking that abandoning Iraq wouldn't really end the war, but merely change the geographical location of the battlefield. After all, it was terrorists who struck here first. I know of no Viet Cong attacking American soil, or being trained for that purpose. What about the moral implications when Congress ultimately stopped funding the effort in Southeast Asia? Many people eventually concluded that we didn’t belong there, and I won’t second guess them now. But did the unintended consequences of our pull-out merely enable the Khmer Rouge to exterminate scores of human beings in the killing fields of Cambodia? Was the domino theory really a delusion? Slipping out the back seems tempting, but is often not wise in the long run.
The whole argument about patriotism is moot. Have you ever met anyone who claims to be unpatriotic? I have no idea exactly what someone would have to do to be unpatriotic-- it is apparently undefined. But here’s my proposition: if people say that they support the troops, yet do or say things that jeopardize the troops mission, then the least we can call this is poor judgment.
The noted author and Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis noted that "Christianity has made two efforts to deal with the evils of war; chivalry and pacifism. Neither succeeded, but I doubt if chivalry has had such an unbroken record of failure as pacifism."
Blank–check pacifism is self-defeating. We could all put up yard signs that say "war is not the answer". True enough. But the folks we need to convince are half way around the world lopping people's heads off. We can try unconditional pacifism, but what if you are dealing with a mentality that interprets overtures like this as an indication of weakness, and sees us as a over ripe plum ripe for plunking? How exactly does the state protect its people from that possibility?
Some appeal to religious ethic, reminding us that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers," or "turn the other cheek." These people clearly fail to distinguish between the biblical role of the state( to wield the sword against the evil-doer) versus the duty of the individual (to live as peacefully as possible with all men) . They assume the methods by which the individual and the governing authorities "make the peace", must be identical.
Recently I watched a T.V. documentary, which featured some commentary by Bin Laden. A statement by him near the end of the program which caught my attention, was that the problem for America is that they love life, but we love death. This should warn anyone with ears to hear that we aren't dealing with a mentality that appeals to reason and non-violence.
Consider that prominent leaders, such as John Kerry, have said as recently as 2002 that Hussein had WMD's. In a October 9, 2002, speech to the Senate, Kerry accepted Bush's 'evidence' against Iraq and backed going to war. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States [Bush] the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security," Trying to weasel out of it later, reminds me of a story I heard about some kids organizing a pick-up baseball game.
They debate whether to play the game on their quiet street, or go to the ball diamond a few blocks down the road. One of them reminds the group that last year a sharply hit foul ball damaged the neighbor’s siding, and suggests they go to the field. But a prominent player says that he is going away with his parents later in the day and must be within earshot, thus they decide to stay. They determine the batting order. The first player, not knowing his own strength, hits a fly ball further than he ever did before–right through the neighbors picture window. All players panic and scatter saying, "it’s your fault, you did it.", leaving him to sheepishly retrieve the ball from the neighbor. How is this different from the way some politicians have reacted with Bush.
Look at the logic of saying that the war in Iraq promotes terrorism. If a serial murderer is on the loose, do we say we shouldn’t investigate the crimes or pursue the culprit, since it will only bring out copy cat killers? Do we let a thief continue to wreak havoc on a neighborhood, because if he is caught, it might make all pretty criminals angry, thus proliferating crime? What additional motivation do fanatics need beyond a belief that their own martyrdom will bring them instantly to paradise?
We might proceed with logical questions about whether this conflict violates the principles of the Just War Theory, instead of all these baseless indictments that don’t persuade anyone who isn’t already riding shotgun on the bash Bush bandwagon.
Consider the common arguments against Bush.
Bush lied about WMD's. We must concede that if lying is despicable, then capriciously accusing someone of lying must be comparatively bad also. Notice they choose this approach rather than to say Bush was wrong, the intelligence was faulty, etc. This reveals an ideological knee-jerk response--not a thoughtful conclusion. Why wouldn't Congress try to impeach him if it was provable? Why wouldn't Bush have been devious enough to plant the evidence vindicating him if he was corrupt enough to lie?
The war is exchanging blood for oil. Why not first take it from Kuwait, where it would be like taking a lollipop from a child?
It was revenge for an attempt on Daddy's life. Have they not merely substituted possible motives as the proxy for real evidence?
Bush is a fascist. If Bush really was Hitler's more evil counterpart, you would get the chance to say so publicly only once before being whisked away by jack-booted thugs.
Political decisions are often a choice between lesser and greater evils. History often rebukes a leader for the consequences of the evil chosen, but mitigates or forgets the potential benefits of the evil avoided. Let’s not be so foolish.
http://www.therealitycheck.org/FeaturedWriters/rmeyer100305.htm