This being Memorial Day in the U.S., I thought it appropriate to address the complexity of the acts meant to be highlighted on this day. In short, it is a day for remembering those who have fallen in the liberation and defense of this nation.
Liberation is an easy thing to justify as it specifically deals with the acquisition of freedom. That is, in my opinion, the only reason for which any of us should ever take up arms: our own freedom. While people around the world have too often taken up arms to acquire their freedom only to have one despot replaced by another, this country enjoyed the fruits of an enlightened few who put forth a system under which freedom could be retained, at least for a short time. These founders even had the foresight to guard against the slow decay of freedoms they saw as inevitable.
Defense is a different subject entirely. The term itself opens the discussion to subjectivity. Against what have we defended ourselves? After all, other than 1812, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001, there have not been any direct attacks on U.S. soil. Yet we have engaged, almost continuously, in some conflict or other.
Now I am not arguing against engagement without direct provocation. We all know that Nazi Germany would have continued its pursuit of global domination had the U.S. and other remotely interested countries not joined the fight, almost preemptively, against them. Sadly, it is arguments such as this that are leveraged to justify other engagements. According to many at the time, Vietnam became a mission for the same reasons that WWII required our involvement in the European theater: the spread of communism. However, the domino theory ignored the very fact that the communist system against which we were to take up arms had little hope of sustaining itself. So many Americans died defending a system of democracy and capitalism against an idea that has no potential in reality. While we should memorialize their individual sacrifices, we should also take this opportunity to understand the pointlessness of the overall action.
Today we find ourselves in a similar position. While our dispute with The Taliban and their protection of Al Qaeda warranted a response, the continued nation building exercises hardly garner the same justifications. Had Iraq indeed proven to be a source of weapons, our involvement there would have had some substance, particularly in light of the goals of entities such as Al Qaeda. However, using the spread of democracy and the freeing of a nation is hardly the same as claiming defense. As each American who dies in these conflicts earns the remembrance designated for this day, we who remain must make a better effort to ensure that future sacrifices are made only in the name of defending the liberty to which we so tenuously cling.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Battle Rages On
We as a nation remain embroiled in two conflicts, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. Despite having a commander in chief who professes to oppose war, neither conflict shows much sign of soon ending.
Each of these is different in many respects. Afghanistan, for example, was started as a direct response to Taliban protection and sponsorship of Al Qaeda, a group that had perpetrated attacks on American citizens in both this and other countries. While the initial operation was relatively swift, the engagement has been complex and extended. Afghanistan is once again earning the title "Graveyard of Empires".
Iraq, on the other hand, was started as an extension of the Afghan conflict. The initial rationale was that Saddam Hussein had pursued and developed weapons that posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies. However, as the buildup to war proceeded, the rhetoric changed. Not only were Americans to disarm both a direct threat and a potential arms dealer to sundry terrorist outfits, we were to both liberate and bring democracy to an oppressed people in the process. It is on these latter points that the argument broke down.
The United States has had a long, if sometimes reluctant history of being the world's police. We have involved ourselves in many humanitarian, political and military actions targeting injustice. However, in the case of Iraq, we took this several steps forward. The rationale was that bringing democracy to Iraq meant stability for that part of the world. While such an assertion might be correct, it was not the responsibility or right of the U.S. to attempt such a thing. The action, absent any legitimate threat of weapons stockpiles or development, was illegitimate at best despite its moral claim.
Yet we remain in each of these conflicts. I would assert that the reason for this is no different than the reason for starting them in the first place. After 9/11, America had an obvious enemy against which our leaders could rally the masses. The wars themselves then became extensions of that enemy, regardless how far removed from the initial attacks they are. In a way, they represent East Asia or, alternatively, Eurasia. These are part and parcel of the machinations of global power where a common enemy maintains centralized power. While Bush had the heat of fresh attack to spark the conflicts and was forced to deal with waning political support in the media, Obama has the luxury of maintaining each of these conflicts, with the support of the media, until they serve a political purpose. It's time we removed the potential for any president to again claim moral high ground simply because he or she has instigated or perpetuated aggression.
Each of these is different in many respects. Afghanistan, for example, was started as a direct response to Taliban protection and sponsorship of Al Qaeda, a group that had perpetrated attacks on American citizens in both this and other countries. While the initial operation was relatively swift, the engagement has been complex and extended. Afghanistan is once again earning the title "Graveyard of Empires".
Iraq, on the other hand, was started as an extension of the Afghan conflict. The initial rationale was that Saddam Hussein had pursued and developed weapons that posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies. However, as the buildup to war proceeded, the rhetoric changed. Not only were Americans to disarm both a direct threat and a potential arms dealer to sundry terrorist outfits, we were to both liberate and bring democracy to an oppressed people in the process. It is on these latter points that the argument broke down.
The United States has had a long, if sometimes reluctant history of being the world's police. We have involved ourselves in many humanitarian, political and military actions targeting injustice. However, in the case of Iraq, we took this several steps forward. The rationale was that bringing democracy to Iraq meant stability for that part of the world. While such an assertion might be correct, it was not the responsibility or right of the U.S. to attempt such a thing. The action, absent any legitimate threat of weapons stockpiles or development, was illegitimate at best despite its moral claim.
Yet we remain in each of these conflicts. I would assert that the reason for this is no different than the reason for starting them in the first place. After 9/11, America had an obvious enemy against which our leaders could rally the masses. The wars themselves then became extensions of that enemy, regardless how far removed from the initial attacks they are. In a way, they represent East Asia or, alternatively, Eurasia. These are part and parcel of the machinations of global power where a common enemy maintains centralized power. While Bush had the heat of fresh attack to spark the conflicts and was forced to deal with waning political support in the media, Obama has the luxury of maintaining each of these conflicts, with the support of the media, until they serve a political purpose. It's time we removed the potential for any president to again claim moral high ground simply because he or she has instigated or perpetuated aggression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
