Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: War. Huh! What is it good for?

September 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Paul Gessing links to an excellent article by Doug Bandow on anti-war.com. Yes, we all agree, Iraq is a disaster, on many, many levels.

Bandow goes further: That humanitarian wars may sound better, but are just as injurious as unprovoked interventions like Vietnam and Iraq. He says: “[H]umanitarian intervention rarely has humanitarian results.” That’s probably true, but does that make the notion of humanitarian war something to oppose always? And, if we oppose all humanitarian wars, do we oppose them as vociferously as, say, the Iraq War?

I’d like to start a dialog on this, because while I used to agree with Bandow, I’m having serious doubts about that view. Bandow, for instance, cites the situation in Kosovo, noting that the unintended consequences led to more atrocities. I’m not surprised by this. War is a dirty, messy, killing business, and no matter how it’s waged, there almost always collateral damage. So, it appears, Bandow overstates. Near as I can tell, the Balkans have begun to stabilize, which I believe all would agree is a good thing. If the standard is overnight success, Bandow’s correct. But who ever expected instant results?

The theoretical case for some US involvement in humanitarian efforts goes something like this:

* American taxpayers object to genocide anywhere. If asked: “Would you support a small percentage of your tax dollars to aid to stop a genocide?” I suspect that 95% of taxpayers would say Yes. Is this an ABSOLUTE justification for humanitarian war? No. It’s a relative one. Any government function will have some objection, including courts and cops.

Despite all its dysfunction, the US effectively has a treaty with the UN. Treaties are constitutionally authorized, despite the fact that, in most cases, I personally suggest the US should exit most or all of its current treaties, as they are relics of a different time. In theory, an international organization like the UN should be prepared to step in when genocide is taking place, if at all practicable. In specific cases, one might object to a UN intervention, but the question is: On balance, is this a role that is supportable? Unless one is a pacifist or an anarchist, most would say Yes.

This begins to illustrate the unworkability of absolutism. Emerson taught us the difference between “consistency” and “a foolish consistency,” the latter of which he called “the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Perhaps that was Ronald Reagan was getting at when he said: “Never say never.”

So, to answer Edwin Starr’s (and, perhaps for you Seinfeld fans out there, Tolstoy’s) question, what is war good for?: It might be good for ending atrocities, on balance.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

Capozzi makes good points in his discussion of so-called humanitarian wars. It would be nice if our political leaders were wise enough to involve the country only in truly humanitarian efforts and only at the correct moment so as to not be used as a pawn by one side or another in a civil war.

Given the shortcomings of our government in general, I don't think we should give our leaders that kind of responsibility or power. Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of voluntary do-gooder force organized among people who feel the need to go around protecting various oppressed people worldwide.

Barring that and despite its tremendous flaws, I think it makes more sense to work within international institutions, ie. the UN, when it comes to humanitarian efforts.

Posted by: Paul Gessing | December 17, 2006 02:14 PM

I think that probably the primary argument against "humanitarian" war is a bias against the sorts of people that constitute government. Government might justify war on the base of "humanitarianism," but we can be quite certain that is not the sole, or even the primary motivation.

The decision, like all governing decisions, is pretty much guaranteed to be made on the basis of what seems beneficial to the various interests that converge upon Washington with the intent of using violence and threats therof to achieve their ends.

I, too, can support the idea of Americans voluntarily contributing, both monetarily and personally, to worldwide movements to increase liberty and/or secure justice. However, I consider the government to be a poor repository for such sentiments. Beltway culture, the inevitable result of massively overpowered government, will inevitably corrupt any attempts at "humanitarianism."

Posted by: Tarvok | December 18, 2006 08:58 PM