Common sense

[hnumpah]

It's Common Sense, Not Pacifism
 
by Charley Reese


I should clarify something during this season when everyone hopes for peace and good will: I am not a pacifist.

If war is forced upon us, we have no choice but to fight it. Ernest Hemingway said it well when he observed that there are several things worse than war, and they all come with defeat.

I have opposed and still oppose the war in Iraq because, knowing something about the Middle East, I knew it would be futile. I knew we weren't threatened by Iraq. I knew that the war would be a war of aggression on our part. I knew that no clear-cut victory would be possible.

Even though there has been some diminution in violence, the fundamental political problem remains. The Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds are not fond of each other. For a long time, the Shi'ites and the Kurds suffered under Saddam Hussein's primarily Sunni regime. Now that the Shi'ites and the Kurds are in control, they are not going to be easily reconciled. Furthermore, the Kurds don't especially like Arabs and want an independent country. The Turks don't especially like the Kurds and will react violently to any move on the part of the Kurds to declare independence.

So, the U.S. forces in the country have a wolf by the ear. We can keep the level of violence reasonably contained as long as we stay there, but neither the armed forces nor the U.S. budget can afford to stay there indefinitely. And to leave, we have to let go of the wolf.

The present peace in the Anbar province came about because the al-Qaeda fighters went too far and the Sunni sheiks decided to kill them. We, opportunistically, said, "Hey, as long as you're killing al-Qaeda instead of us, we will give you guns and money." Now the Marines in Anbar are enjoying Arab hospitality, which I fear they are mistaking for friendship.

I don't know how things will play out. As long as the cowardly Congress continues to fund the war, the troops will be stuck there. Don't look for any victory parades or celebrations. Bombs and bullets will stay on the menu probably as long as we are there and afterward, too, until some new Iraqi strongman takes control.

As for Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating, Americans should be clear about what we did there. The Taliban won the civil war by driving the northern warlords out of Kabul. We hired the warlords to fight the Taliban, bribing them with cash and air support. Afghanistan is now run by the warlords, and they are turning it into a narco-state. At the same time, we failed to catch or kill Osama bin Laden, who was the only person in Afghanistan or Iraq who had attacked us.

Now the U.S. has dragged NATO into the fight, but I don't think the Europeans will stick. What is the point of a European getting himself killed in Afghanistan? Or an American, for that matter? There is nothing in Afghanistan except fields of opium and men with rifles.

We are overextended, both militarily and financially. That's just a sad truth. Our economy is teetering on the edge of a recession or worse. Our so-called diplomacy in the Middle East is getting less than zero results. We are crazy to try to stay there. The age of colonialism is over.

We should go to war only in self-defense. I don't believe the American people wish to adopt Iraq and Afghanistan as permanent wards of the taxpayers. I don't believe they want to keep burying sons and daughters whose deaths don't make America safer. That's not pacifism. It's common sense.
 

[Amianthus]

We should go to war only in self-defense. [...] That's not pacifism.

Well, actually it is. There are various "levels" of pacifism, and "self-defense only" is one of them.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well, actually it is. There are various "levels" of pacifism, and "self-defense only" is one of them.

Well no, actually it's not. Self-defense is attacking only when you are attacked.

Observe that self-defense has worked admirably well for Sweden and Switzerland.

Juniorbush's preemptive war in Iraq was not pacifism, and was a truly rotten idea, and self-defense is a far better one.

[Amianthus]

Well no, actually it's not. Self-defense is attacking only when you are attacked.

[anti-bush rant removed, as it is not topical to the pacifism discussion]

Well yes, actually it is.

Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that non-violent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

[Richpo64]

>>Juniorbush's preemptive war in Iraq was not pacifism, and was a truly rotten idea, and self-defense is a far better one.<<

You do realize President Bush wasn't the originator of the preemtive strike, don't you?

As for self defense, I'd much rather kill them before they kill us.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As for self defense, I'd much rather kill them before they kill us.
=====================
And where did you get the idea that Saddam had the desire or means to kill you?

Over 3500 more Americans are dead because some idiots thought as you describe, and for no purpose at all. You are less safe than before.

Of course, you are STILL more likely to die in a traffic accident than in any terrorist attack, as you always were.

[gipper]

Properly conceived, shorn of the pacificism issue, preemptive strikes fall on a continuum from outright aggression to commonsensical self-defense by anyone's standards. The trouble with Iraq, and there are many, is that we got it wrong, way wrong, falling far to the side of unjustified aggression (albeit against a damnable regime) based on grossly false facts. But even analyzed according to the terms accepted as sufficient at the time, the decision to invade Iraq was flawed for so many reasons. The larger points are the issue of time (let the inspectors do their job?), the issue of alternate means (was it really possible for Sadam to abdicate and go into safe exile confronted with the specter of what actually befell him?), the issue of proportion (was a future terrorist attack on the US, conceived within reason, worth the widespread destruction of life, treasure and stability in a country that didn't choose itself to suffer the scourge of war?), the issue of confusion (what did Sadam have to do with 9-11?), and the issue, returning to the original theme, of a trumped up war to sacrifice a susceptible scapegoat on facts that were not even marginal in retrospect, that is, which had no relation to the real situation obtaining in the world. This sorry record distorted the idea of preemption, which should only be used to stave off an imminent threat in proportion to the force needed to prevent that attack itself, while placing all alternate means of resolving the conflict, within reason, as an absolute prerequisite: war is a true last resort.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Verbose as only Domer could make it, but true, entirely true. Saddam was no serious threat to the US, and without the war, 3500 Americans would be alive, even more unmaimed, not to mention the thousands of Iraqis killed, maimed and driven into exile. Over a million Christian Iraqis are now dead, maimed or in exile as a direct result of this foolish war that has Richie-poo feeling so safe.

[gipper]

That's not verbosity; it's eloquence. I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Never use one word when fifteen will do?

It all depends on whether one fancies Nathaniel Hawthorne or Hemingway.

[Plane]

When it is possible to be proactive , is it more wise and virtuous to eschew action?

The war that seems prpetual in the middle east has root causes , afer this war reached out and touched us at home it seemed good to do something to the root of the problem.

Saddam ussein was not the entire root of the problem but removeing him was strikeing closer to the roots than adopting an isolationist policy would have been.

[hnumpah]

The war that seems prpetual in the middle east has root causes , afer this war reached out and touched us at home it seemed good to do something to the root of the problem.

Root causes we might have done something about?

How about reining in Israel, forcing them to withdraw from their illegal settlements and return the land and property to their rightful owners? I'm not talking about Israel proper here, just the land and territory they have taken and put settlements on over the years, in violation of UN resolutions. Resolutions, by the way, we ignore and refuse to enforce, while we go tripping off after Saddam and Iraq and use UN resolutions as an excuse.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Saddam Hussein was not the entire root of the problem but removeing him was strikeing closer to the roots than adopting an isolationist policy would have been.

Saddam Hussein had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Israeli- Palestini problem, other than trying to squeeze himself into it by a rather puny and short-term b0ombing of Israel with a few Scud missiles, just because he kneww it would piss off the US and Israel, thereby gaining his Arab support, which did not seem to have happened, by the way.

The US could simply stop sending money to Israel. A second step would make Americans sending money to Israeli causes non-tax deductible. A third turn of the screw would be the US making it illegal, as it is to contribute to the IRA Provos.

None of this would cost the US a dime. In fact, it would save money. They could also withdraw aid for Egypt and Jordan and stop arming Saudi Arabia and others.

Each one of these actions would do more to resolve the Palisrael situation than invading Iraq, and none would result in anyone dying.

I do not oppose Richie-Poo joining the IDF, by the way.

[Plane]

The war that seems perpetual in the middle east has root causes , after this war reached out and touched us at home it seemed good to do something to the root of the problem.

Root causes we might have done something about?

How about reining in Israel, forcing them to withdraw from their illegal settlements and return the land and property to their rightful owners? I'm not talking about Israel proper here, just the land and territory they have taken and put settlements on over the years, in violation of UN resolutions. Resolutions, by the way, we ignore and refuse to enforce, while we go tripping off after Saddam and Iraq and use UN resolutions as an excuse.

How about not "reining in Israel" so much?
When we have called a halt to Israeli action we have prevented drastic solutions , perhaps we have prevented all of the potential solutions.
Israel is about as reigned in as it can be and continue to exist.
Last year Hezbolla attacked Israel and kidnapped a couple of bargaining chips.
They probably expected Israel to be reigned in a lot sooner than it was.

[hnumpah]

When we have called a halt to Israeli action we have prevented drastic solutions , perhaps we have prevented all of the potential solutions.

You miss my meaning. I'm not talkiing about last year, or the year before, or even ten years ago. I'm saying we should have made it clear to Israel after the '48 war that they could not keep the Arabs from returning to their rightful property. Israel may have a right to exist; the Arabs, regardless of what you call them, have the right to return to their property and have that property returned to them. The UN has agreed that the Israeli settlements were illegal years ago, and resolutions have been in place for quite some time. Yet Israel ignores them, and so do we, when we let them continue to build settlements and violate the UN resolutions year after year. I'm saying if Israel had treated the Arabs honorably and fairly since their state came into existence, perhaps the Arabs wouldn't be so violently disposed toward them.