| Subject: War on Iraq: Completing a contract |
Author:
Andrew Sullivan
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:21:58 03/09/03 Sun
War with Iraq: completing a contract.
By Andrew L. Sullivan former chair of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska
The purpose of this essay is not attack peace activists and Libertarians for opposing war. The purpose this essay is show the necessity of creating a pathway for peace.
There are two issues which Libertarians fail to recognize in foreign policy issues. First, there is no rule of law on a global scale. While there is much talk of international law, such laws are only a courtesy of shared value between countries. Enforcement of such law is nearly nonexistent.
Secondly, is the obligation of contract. Libertarians will defend contracts between individuals but in the chaotic world of international affairs, Libertarians think we can just pack up our military and head home without betraying long established allies.
Libertarians are right in the general matter of reducing the United States military presence in foreign countries. However, with specifics, the Libertarians leave a massive vacuum of power, indecision and uncertainty which could result in a series of wars.
United States foreign policy has largely been about preventing promiscuous conquest from tyrannical governments. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States saw opportunity to stop naked aggression and did so. I objected to this action because I knew that most Americans had no idea of the complexity of the Middle East or the vast culture gulf between the West and the world of Islam.
Today, people protest “going to war” or a “pre-emptive strike” against Iraq. Such words do not describe the facts. We have been at war with Iraq for 12 years creating a fence of bombs to prevent Saddam from killing his own people. We imposed stiff sanctions against Iraq. These are not actions of peace as far as Iraq is concerned. We are still at war with Iraq because we never finished the job of taking Saddam out of power.
Protests mention the possibility of an increase of terrorism while at the same time denying Iraq has any connection to terrorism. Such objections miss the religious animosity US foreign policy has caused in the world of Islam. People are still acting as if the problem of terrorism is political, not religious, or of poverty instead of legitimate anger.
Osama Bin Laden named several legitimate issues in his war with America which has inspired many in the Islamic world. He mentioned the Palestinian issue, the sanctions on Iraq and the US bases in Saudi Arabia. We can not address these issues while Saddam is in power. The Palestinians are linked to Iraq and there are numerous terrorist connections and Iraq has shown support for the families of suicidal bombers. We most certainly can not expect to lift sanctions while Saddam is in power, but those sanctions cause a great deal of suffering which way heavily on the minds of many Moslems. By agreement, US military bases in Saudi Arabia are there to protect the country from Saddam. We can not pull out of Saudi Arabia unless we take Saddam out or break our contract with Saudi Arabia.
Finally, even if we pulled out, Saddam would kill many Kurds and other minorities, and the US would be blamed for it just as Ariel Sharon is blamed for the murders of Christian militias in Lebanon when the Israeli Army pulled out of Lebanon. There are no international systems of law to prevent massacres.
The most damaging part, however, is the gulf of ignorance between Americans and Islamic world. Americans think that the terrorism is political matter when it is not. Osama Bin Ladin, foolish lumps the United States in with European Christian Crusaders ignoring the fact that the United States came into existence out of the rejection of European intolerance.
Furthermore, Moslems are being more harmed by Moslem fanatics then by anything else. The world of Islam is repeating the very same mistakes of intolerance and brutality, Christians did centuries ago in killing each other. Moslems do not know about the conflict in Northern Ireland or the Irish famine. They do not understand the concepts of a limited government or the use of a parliamentarian system or why such a system works better then Sharia Law. There are plenty of Moslems crying out in the wilderness for change but they are afraid of being executed by their fellow Moslems.
Moslems are so religious and so far away from politics, they blame the World Trade Center attacks on Israel. Moslems are deeply ashamed that anyone would claim to be Islam while carrying out such devastation. To them, the attacks appear political anti-religious as well as violent so they attribute the acts to what they view as a violent political non-religious entity such as Israel or even the United States.
Libertarians and the peace activists do not understand Moslems. If we just bring our troops home, many Moslems will die and we will still be blamed for the outcome. For a person who does not understand politics, like many Moslems living under despotic governments, such mass murder of people would be seen as betrayal. For a faith filled person, as many Moslems are, such an act would be an act of evil from an evil people. For a Moslem extremist, which there are many, such evil people must be stopped by any means necessary. Now do you know why Saddam must go?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
