Musings on the War of a Citizen

Great Debates
1

Okay, I’m a citizen which makes me feel that I have rights. Agreed? I may not be an American citizen for I’m a Canadian (born in the Netherlands). Still, I wish to contribute my conclusions to you Americans, because a petition to you few American citizens will be far more effective for me than any petition to the Canadian government. Think about it ? All you American guys few as you may be have more influence on the foreign policy of George Bush than my Prime Minister Stephan Harper. Please try to remember that name.

Why are you more effective. Because you have the opportunity to influence voters in America , not Stephan Harper ! Harper won’t affect American elections or public opinion. You American guys can. You can campaign with results.

So it is with deep humility that I present the case for the war In Iraq. Forgive me if I end up sounding like an idiot. I’ve vascillated on this issue so much because major moral issues are involved and they don’t all fall on the same side of the line for me. I’m seeking more input, because I’m afraid where my present conclusions are heading me. Still, I think I may have a very good case. I suspect at this point I have to make up my mind if my presence here on this earth is gonna count for a blessing to mankind. You be the judge.

First off, I think we can all agree that the Iraqi people are better of just like us, that is the western democratic countries and maybe Japan. I say maybe for Japan because of the racism.

If America could make Iraqi democracy happen without any cost, it should shouldn’t it ? Am I my brother’s keeper? I’m sorry, I was raised on the bible.

But is this worth 3,4 5, maybe even six thousand and more young American lives. What about 1 American life. Who’s gonna volunteer? Not me. What right do I have to petition for a war which is gonna kill my neighbour, and America, you are my neighbour.

I reminisce about past wars that have secured my present freedoms within a bastion of freedom led by America over the past 100 years. I’m grateful. I’m grateful to American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander and European undergound fighters like my father in Holland in his youth. A lot of people died in those two world wars.

So why is the present total of American dead so special to me ? On the scale of world shaking wars it is pretty small.

Nevertheless, I’m still faced with the moral conundrum of supporting the war if I’m not willing to lay down my own life.

I digressed into considering what is important to us free people. Certainly cosidering the polarity of politics in just about any free country we can find areas where can all agree on. I would have said human rights. but I’m sure that gays could argue with that. All I could come up with is having a good economy.
And what will a good economy achieve? The eventual depletion of resources for our children and grand children, a climatic upheaval going God know where, and the death and maiming injuries of traffic victims as a result our love affair with ownership of a vehicle. Never mind the thousands of workers getting killed, maimed, or acquiring industrial diseases, to feed our materialism.

Materialism. What sort of justification is that for accepting the death and maiming American citizens. Complaints and solutions can only be designed to mitigate negative outcomes.

I don’t know why, but I believe we accept the low risk to ourselves even though it is certain that our neighbour is gonna killed by an automobile. Just don’t know which one. Does it matter ? I have no choice. I’m gonna continue to drive my vehicle. Sorry, but I can not even justify this decision morally. The upside for the vehicular culture is selfish, so selfish for me that it is a need for which death and injury are justified in my mind. So why am I questioning the war on the basis of the death total of American soldiers. After all there is a more altruistic objective in this war isn’t there ?

Then I found an answer to my dilemna. Rcruitment into the armed forces are voluntary aren’t they. If the young person chooses to put themselves in a position of risk who are we to question ?

But why would they choose the risk? I know they’re young, and susceptable to making stupid mistakes. As an adult, I feel some responsibility to the younger generation. But I was young once and given the opportunity, I would have risked my life as a race car driver. Race car deaths were quite more common in my youth.
I wanted the thrill of “living on the edge”.

So why didn’t I enlist in the Canadian army when I was young? Oh please.

If there was an ROTC (I think that is the correct acronym) on my campus at UofW, I just might have joined. Yeah, I thought communism was worth fighting for. I’m sorry to say that I held out for the Vietnam war longer than most others.

Lets face it. Those soldiers in Iraq may be living in fear, but they are having the thrilling experience of living on the edge, comradship, and sense of worth. They made their bed, they are sleeping in it and all I can do is pay my respects and give them the glory and adulation they seek in return for their life.

There is a compromise for my moral dilemna here. The objective in Iraq is just, even if the initial presidential reason for it is a lie. The cost in lives, both in death and maiming to coalition soldiers can only be justified by what we give these men and women in return. I for one will stand up when I see an American soldier enter the room.

In commiserating over my attempt to establish where I stand on the war, I think I may be putting too much emphasis on “am I my brother’s keeper?” But there is an other side to this as well. Aren’t Iraqis my brother as well?
What is the upside for them when they had no say in this war. Could they have had a say ? In my heart I believe my Iraqi brothers and sisters want freedom as much as I cherish it . The elections seem to bear that out.They don’t like it but if the real leader of most of the Iraqis with no thanks to American intervention continues to tolerate the American presence and sovereignty process, I’ve got to accept that they are willing to pay the same price as our own previous generations have done for freedom and liberty.

The only question that remains for me is that the effort isn’t as effective as it could be. Honestly, I don’t know and you won’t be able to convince me one way or the other, so if you respond to this thread, keep that in mind.

So if you disagree with the war, where am I going wrong?

2

Well, that depends on what your position is on humanitarian intervention in general.

At present, launching an unprovoked attack on another nation violates international law. No matter how nasty their regime is or how much democracy you want to install or how little it would cost you, you’re not allowed just to waltz in and conquer and occupy them.

I think there’s a strong case to be made for hammering out some rules for meaningful exceptions to this law, so that it will be legally possible to step in and turf a tyrannical regime out when they start causing too much misery. But I think we need to start by collaboratively changing the rules, not just unilaterally ignoring them when it suits our convenience.

The trouble is that it’s not possible—and, I would argue, not moral—to start wars based on abstract “objectives” without regard to practical realities. Leaders have to be honest with their people about what they’re asking them to do and why. And leaders have a moral obligation, when undertaking something as difficult and destructive as a war, to determine realistically whether and how they’ll actually be able to accomplish their objective. If you start something difficult and destructive without really knowing what you’re doing, it’s not enough to say “But I meant well.”

Well, I think that’s a noble gesture, and I’m sure people in the military will appreciate it (actually, the people I know in the military might not appreciate it so much because it would probably make them feel kind of embarrassed. You might want to consider buying them coffee instead. They love coffee. :)).

But I’m not sure that it counts as providing any kind of “justification” for the cost that they have to bear. To me, that sounds kind of as though we’re offering to give the soldiers glory and adulation in exchange for not having to confront the guilt of having sent them to war for dishonest reasons and without an adequate plan for success.