From: Greg Burch (gregburch@gregburch.net)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 16:22:32 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbie Lindauer
>
> Still waiting to hear from Mr. Burch in a civil manner what experiences
> back the use of the term "Forced" in relation to why the US went to war
> with Iraq as in "The US was 'forced' to go to war with Iraq".
Robbie, unfortunately I've run out of time to write at length for the
holiday, so I'm going to try to express the super-condensed, enriched,
fortified version, rather than the fully-articulated, more-fully-explained
version. Because of the form, I question the utility of the expression, but
with all due regard for trying to respond in a timely fashion, here goes:
The action in Afghanistan was simple and straightforward. The specific
agency that had mounted the 911 attacks had been and was continuing to use
Afghanistan as a base of operations in an alliance with the Taliban.
Failure to knock out Al Qaida's base in Afghanistan would have been a
failure to defend ourselves. Knocking the Taliban out of power was an extra
added bonus (see below).
The rationale for the war in Iraq is both more complex and broader. Put
simply, I see states like Iraq as threats to values of liberty and progress
in the human condition. I believe that the Saddam Hussein regime had
reneged on commitments it made in 1991 to end the first Gulf War and, by
doing so, had put itself into an outlaw position. Complete consensus never
happens with progress in legal regimes: Almost always, some element of the
society in which a legal regime is growing steps ahead of the wave of
advancing consensus to act to establish new standards. Ultimately law
either catches up with that action or rejects it. For reasons that I cannot
articulate in the short time I have, I see the action in Iraq as having been
one of those "boundary-pushing" events. Only time will tell whether this
will result in a new equilibrium of legal consensus being established. Yes,
one can characterize this as promoting the U.S. as "the world's policeman,"
a view that is unpopular in the rest of the world. Whether that is a view
that others will come to accept in the long run will be determined by the
long-term outcome of the action undertaken by the U.S.
Finally, I see both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, along with 911, in a
larger context of a real clash of cultures between Islam and those parts of
the world that have adopted Enlightenment values and have the courage to
stick by them. Oil wealth and the West's dependence on Middle East oil have
empowered the Islamic world to take up again the expansionist program that
only temporarily ended with the growth in European strength in the 18th and
19th centuries. Stopping that expansionism will be one of the challenges of
the 21st century. Islam -- at least the Islam practiced in important parts
of the world -- has never put down the sword. Much more violent clashes
between Islam and the Enlightened world are yet to come.
With each paragraph above, I have stepped up one level of generalization
and, in doing so, have obscured significant meaning. Sic transit...
> I would say that particular branch had taken a turn for the better,
> wouldn't you? We'd gotten quickly to the heart of the matter and were
> even civil about it.
Let us endeavor to maintain our civility. Thank you.
GB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 16:33:34 MDT