diet coke for breakfast

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Posted by Tanstaafl
Counterpoint: Military Service - The Politic - Opinion:

I trust Kerry only to send American troops overseas when justice demands it, not because I like him, but because he saw firsthand the horrors and misery of a war which justice did not demand.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Did justice demand we go to Iraq this time? Will President Kerry always send our troops when "justice demands it"? Did justice demand that we send troops to Rwanda to stop the Genocide, and would President Kerry have sent them? And what theory of justice should we use? This sounds real nice, but it exhibits a pretty simplistic view of how decisions to war are usually framed. I thought Kerry supporters were the ones with the nuanced views of foreign policy.

Personally, I usually use the yardstick that we must go to war when our leaders believe that it is necessary to defend the American people, and if possible we should go to war if it will not risk other national security interests and if our leaders can convince us that it is a moral cause. I think Iraq covers both those cases. Obviously there has been an intelligence failure either in the misidentification of WMD or in subsequent inability to find them. However, at the time it was believed that Saddam had unconventional military capability and that could not be safe for the world. Additionally, Saddam was clearly a destabilizing force in the region. He helped fund suicide bombers and he had attacked his neighbors on more than one occasion. Since a stable Middle East could be easily considered to be in our national security interests, we have the first and sufficient criteria covered. Of course, we also had the moral cause. I believe that when all is said and done, the Iraqi people will be more free, more prosperous, and frankly more alive because we deposed their gruesome stalinist dictator.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?