Thursday, November 29, 2007
U.S. Involvement at the International Level
Most recently, I have been reading a book titled, "Why Nations go to War" written by political analyst Dr. John G. Stoessinger. I must confess, I traditionally find myself towards the right side of the political spectrum. As I have further contemplated war in general, especially U.S. intervention in Japan during World War II and more currently, the war in Iraq, I have asked myself what and who is exactly benefited. Billions of dollars and more importantly, human lives, are invested in accomplishing a greater purpose; What exactly is the greater purpose? Many support U.S. involvement today in Iraq for: controlling terrorism, establishing democracy, protecting human rights, and even protecting our homeland. If these motives listed above give reason for war, I ask the following questions. 1. Where was the United States and the rest of the world during the genocide of Rwanda? 2. Why are we not more involved in regional wars in Africa such as Darfur or Uganda? I fully understood the U.S. does not have the means nor necessarily the responsibility of protecting the world. I do, however, believe our motive for war should not be founded upon "how the U.S. will benefit". I do not believe that thought process is morally ethical. Rather, I believe decisions of war must be based on: "Which intervention will benefit the greater amount of people", regardless of nationality or ethnicity. I have written this post with the intent of some enlightenment of why we are in Iraq. If it be for the reasons listed above, I then ask; Will this benefit the greater amount of people? Or are there other problems in the world that may be far more damaging, outside U.S. interests? Interestingly enough, a war in Africa or Eastern Asia would be far less costly (economically) than a war in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
you raise some very good points Brian. I am curious to know your opinion on the War in Iraq. Do you think we need to pull our troops out? Perhaps we do need to focus our efforts in an area that would benefit a greater sum of people.
Brian,
I'm trying to reconcile this statement from your post...
"I believe decisions of war must be based on: Which intervention will benefit the greater amount of people, regardless of nationality or ethnicity."
...with this hypothetical scenario:
Assume Canada contains about 5,000 violent neo-nazis and 5,000 democracy-minded, free-thinking people and they all live in peace. However, US intelligence learns that the violent canadian neo-nazis plan to bomb a convention center where there will be about 9,999 jewish people at the convention. Because a ground war or other form of war would result in extra casualties on our side, is the US free to destroy Canada because there is one less person at stake? If the convention center had 10,001 people in attendance would we have to let the neo-nazis bomb the place?
While interventionism purely for virtuous reasons is laudable, is it so ignoble to intervene when US security and economic interests are at risk? What is wrong with self-preservation and economic well-being as motivators to do good?
Very interesting points. We will need to have a little family discussion about these in a few weeks!
Post a Comment