A FINE LINE
July 07, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
by: jovial_cynic
I've gotten into several great conversations regarding some political issues, so I figured I'd bring the topics here and expound a little on the dialogues and perhaps get a better opportunity to explain my position on the topics. I'll have to write these posts in chunks, since there's too much to cover in a single post.
WAR
War sucks. The casualties on all sides of war is justification enough for me to disagree with war in nearly all circumstances, and moreso when the war isn't even fought on the land in which I live. I'm concerned first for the innocent civilians who's deaths are viewed as a mere byproduct of war, as though their deaths are to be expected and ignored. And I'm concerned for soldiers (general definition; I'm concerned for marines and seaman and etc., etc., too) who are put in a situation where they have to kill or be killed. I think war is the final breakdown of humanity - all reasonable options have been exhausted or forgotten, and humans beings are forced to stab, club, shoot, bomb, and otherwise kill one another. It's quite terrible.
But that's not to say that war is always wrong.
The US military, as best as I can figure, is made up of a lot of men and women who have made it their duty to defend the American people as well as the interests of the US government. I think that's valiant and respectable. While there are a lot of rotten people who give the US military a bad name, I think that most of the military is comprised of upstanding people.
I think that it's valiant for an individual to be willing to lay down their life to protect something they love (freedom, family, honor, etc.), but I don't feel that doing so is the same as being willing to lay down your life to fight whatever battle the government thinks is necessary. And that's where things get interesting.
IRAQ
The United States, as an entity, is interested in protecting itself and maintaining global primacy. Every superpower is, because every superpower views other superpowers as competitors (albeit competitors with missiles), and in order to stay in position economically or militarily, sometimes it's a good idea to prevent other countries from having access to resources.
It doesn't make sense for the US to want to topple dictators and introduce democracy when the US has nothing to gain from it. It does, however, make sense for the US to want to secure Iraq and prevent China and Russia from benefiting from Iraqi oil once the sanctions on Iraq were lifted. Strategically speaking, I think it's a good move. I have a hard time saying that I wouldn't do the same thing. And while I'm sure that there are some in the White house who really believed that Saddam was some sort of threat, I think military strategists saw this as the perfect opportunity to position the US in the middle east to help ease dependency on Saudi oil, as well as slow down the advance of potential threats from the other superpowers.
As an individual, I am sickened by the idea of it, because the civilian cost of advancing this military strategy is unacceptable to me. I don't ascribe to utilitarianism, and I don't think that any individual who's on the short end of the philosophy (Iraqi civilians) would. But maybe injecting democracy into Iraq does make the world safer, because the US government is generally involved in helping countries around the world, and advancing the US agenda isn't necessarily bad. But I can't get my mind off the innocent people who "have to die" as a result of war. And it seems that the only people that can casually accept utilitarianism in this context are the folks making the plans from behind expensive desks and comfortable chairs... and I have a problem with that.
... and yet I understand that the US has to do this. It's just difficult to see past the vultures (US oil corporations) circling the carcasses.
NEXT POST: CORPORATE AMERICA
COMING SOON: A FINE LINE, PART 2: CORPORATE AMERICA
WAR
War sucks. The casualties on all sides of war is justification enough for me to disagree with war in nearly all circumstances, and moreso when the war isn't even fought on the land in which I live. I'm concerned first for the innocent civilians who's deaths are viewed as a mere byproduct of war, as though their deaths are to be expected and ignored. And I'm concerned for soldiers (general definition; I'm concerned for marines and seaman and etc., etc., too) who are put in a situation where they have to kill or be killed. I think war is the final breakdown of humanity - all reasonable options have been exhausted or forgotten, and humans beings are forced to stab, club, shoot, bomb, and otherwise kill one another. It's quite terrible.
But that's not to say that war is always wrong.
The US military, as best as I can figure, is made up of a lot of men and women who have made it their duty to defend the American people as well as the interests of the US government. I think that's valiant and respectable. While there are a lot of rotten people who give the US military a bad name, I think that most of the military is comprised of upstanding people.
I think that it's valiant for an individual to be willing to lay down their life to protect something they love (freedom, family, honor, etc.), but I don't feel that doing so is the same as being willing to lay down your life to fight whatever battle the government thinks is necessary. And that's where things get interesting.
IRAQ
The United States, as an entity, is interested in protecting itself and maintaining global primacy. Every superpower is, because every superpower views other superpowers as competitors (albeit competitors with missiles), and in order to stay in position economically or militarily, sometimes it's a good idea to prevent other countries from having access to resources.
It doesn't make sense for the US to want to topple dictators and introduce democracy when the US has nothing to gain from it. It does, however, make sense for the US to want to secure Iraq and prevent China and Russia from benefiting from Iraqi oil once the sanctions on Iraq were lifted. Strategically speaking, I think it's a good move. I have a hard time saying that I wouldn't do the same thing. And while I'm sure that there are some in the White house who really believed that Saddam was some sort of threat, I think military strategists saw this as the perfect opportunity to position the US in the middle east to help ease dependency on Saudi oil, as well as slow down the advance of potential threats from the other superpowers.
As an individual, I am sickened by the idea of it, because the civilian cost of advancing this military strategy is unacceptable to me. I don't ascribe to utilitarianism, and I don't think that any individual who's on the short end of the philosophy (Iraqi civilians) would. But maybe injecting democracy into Iraq does make the world safer, because the US government is generally involved in helping countries around the world, and advancing the US agenda isn't necessarily bad. But I can't get my mind off the innocent people who "have to die" as a result of war. And it seems that the only people that can casually accept utilitarianism in this context are the folks making the plans from behind expensive desks and comfortable chairs... and I have a problem with that.
... and yet I understand that the US has to do this. It's just difficult to see past the vultures (US oil corporations) circling the carcasses.
COMING SOON: A FINE LINE, PART 2: CORPORATE AMERICA