Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Peace, War, and American Obligations

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Adam Baney adds to our conversation about peace, war, and American obligations in the 21st century. His comment suggests:

“Regardless of who is in power, it is essential that we protect those in need of protection, and thwart those who wish to disrupt peace. I believe we all agree on that.”

This view may sound attractive to some, but let’s step back and examine it. It’s my view that the premise of this statement, which echoes Bush’s second inaugural speech, is that the US has an obligation to bring liberty and peace to the world. That, I submit, is one tall order. The world is now, has always been, and, at least for the foreseeable future, will likely be in a state of non-peace. Some nation is always fighting somewhere.

That, of course, is tragic. Using the Baney/Bush/neocon standard, however, signs the US up for policing the world in perpetuity. Do we REALLY want to sign up for this duty? Is there REALLY an obligation to be the world’s policeman?

Most Free Liberals would answer these questions with a resounding “no.” So, with all due respect, Mr. Baney, no, we don’t all agree.

Is this to say that the US should not thwart other nations (or terrorist organizations) that wish to do harm to Americans? Here I say, well, of course.

Where it gets murkier is when US allies are attacked. At this point, the US has numerous alliances, despite George Washington’s sage counsel against “entangling alliances.” The US Constitution allows for treaties, so for the US to renounce all its treaties in this context seems inappropriate. There is, however, a strong case for exiting these treaties when practicable.

War does not bring peace. They are antonyms, as Orwell coyly taught us in 1984. There’s a strong empirical case that wars set up the conditions for more wars in the future. Not always, of course.

War is a nasty, dirty, killing business; in the panic of the moment, wars are fought for reasons that, at the time, seem sound, but are often not so. The latest illustration of this is WMD in Iraq…none have been found, although perhaps they are sitting in a bunker in Syria at the moment…who knows? When emotions run high, the impulse to fight wars heightens. Speculation and demonization of the “enemy” rears its ugly head. Cooler heads often do NOT prevail, and are in fact dismissed as “unpatriotic.”

That’s the pattern, IMO.

Does this mean that US troops and munitions should never be dispatched off shore? In theory, a case could be made for answering that question affirmatively or negatively. It seems unlikely that the vast preponderance of Americans would not support efforts to end a genocide, for example. What is clear, however, is that “genocides” are often not clear-cut situations, with both sides performing acts of atrocity and aggression. So, to intervene is to attempt to take the side of the “lesser evil.” Which is the lesser evil is itself a question that is often unclear. The bull in a china shop often does damage, even when the bull intended to do no harm.

So, while it may sound callous to some, I believe it is good practice to be strongly biased against foreign wars, particularly those where the US is not presented with a clear and present danger. To only fight wars when Congress deliberates and votes affirmatively for a declaration of war seems to be the appropriate path. To fully air all sides, as a check to ensure that the war is not being fought under false pretenses and, instead, soberly, for the right reasons.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

You really should consider changing the title to "Peace, War, and Skirting American Obligations. You write as if this country is somehow autonomous, and not affected by world events. It's not that we need to act as the world's police force, but being visible on the world's stage can play an overwhelming role in deterrence.

The toughest part about these types of conflicts, is that there is no crystal ball to let you know what would have happened if no action had been taken. I can't write that Saddam would have weapons now...because clearly it's pure speculation. Had we stopped Hitler in a pre-emptive strike, history may have read that invading Germany was wrong. There is just no way of knowing the worst case scenario.

What is most troubling about your argument is the "sit back and see" approach to foreign policy. If anything, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both occurred while we sat back and kept our nose out of world affairs. No, war is never a great option, but limiting the powers of our government in the execution of these wars is suicidal. Whether you like it or not the world's problem's are also our own, and the "stick to our own business" idea is a garbage approach, riddled with flaws.

Posted by: abaney18 | November 28, 2006 01:01 PM