A Global Citizen Thinks About War
Published February 04, 2003
Fevered worries on the dawn of a new war rise up now like shrieking demons. We remember the hurt and the pain of the Vietnam War, not just the hell of the war itself with the 58,178 dead but also the lingering wounds of war that scarred the decades that followed — the returning veterans who were shamed for killing for their country; and all the young men with PTSD, of whom some now still cry uncontrollably at a pin drop and suffer flashbacks and night sweats; and then all the broken marriages, the flip-outs, the drug addictions; and the tragic stories like that of Lewis B. Puller, the decorated Marine who survived multiple amputations and depression and alcoholism, only to succumb, finally, to suicide.
Are we ready again for another war so soon? Will the cost be equally as terrible? Will it be worse? Can we survive such wounds? Are we doing the right thing?
On what grounds are we willing to risk our lives and our souls once again in a military venture that is sure to kill many innocents?
XV
Could we in the United States ever imagine the lives of foreign people with such detail and empathy that we would be compelled to act as morally towards them as we do towards our own friends, families, and next-door-neighbors?
Could we ever find a way to believe that the innocent citizens of Iraq are truly our neighbors and thus are deserving of every respect, including the courtesy that we not blow them up? As G.K. Chesterton said, "We make our friends. We make our enemies. God makes our neighbors." Can we find a way to really love our global neighbors?
Moral philosophers offer possible answers to such questions, which lie at the heart of global citizenship. The Greek philosopher Diogenes declared himself to be not a patriot who owed allegiance to any particular city-state, but rather to be "a citizen of the world." The Roman Stoics said that all human beings should enjoy the privileges of citizenship because they shared the unifying trait of rationality. In an Enlightenment treatise that's rising rapidly in popularity, Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant echoed the Stoic line with a twist, i.e., that governments should respect the human rights not only of citizens but of foreigners, an idea later enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
XVI
- A Global Citizen Thinks About War
- Published: February 04, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Doug McGill
- Doug McGill's BC Writer page
- Doug McGill's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Nice utopian worldview, oh citizen, so full of holes I can't address it here, I should start my own blog, I suppose. Go out and do a few of those things you suggest, and if that causes Saddam to step aside and let his people live their lives freely, and causes terrorists to stop attacking us around the world, I will say you are correct. You won't of course, and neither Saddam nor the terrorists will either. In short, great ideas on paper, not likely in real life. You may have all the benevolent goodwill in the world, but not everyone does, and those people mean harm to others like you.
It may be idealistic but I don't think it's utopian. The suggestion that we all try to be good neighbors is practical and idealistic at the same time, and is something we can all do to help.
Interesting analysis, and one I applaud in principle. However, it seems to me that the assumption that "this war is for oil" is necessarily a bad thing might be just a tad irrational. In other words, so it's about oil. So what? As a good friend of mine put it, "If you thought about it for a while, you might find one or two reasons to put a steady, guaranteed supply of petroleum as the second most important natural resource need in the world, but most likely, you'd have to put it right at the top of the list."
Surprisingly, the "humanitarian angle" still works admirably well even from this perspective. Not only do we liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator (which, by the way, is still a noble pursuit regardless of whether it is a primary casus belli.) but we at least partially secure the Arabian Peninsulaand all its vast oil reserves. Now when we do that, we guarantee that 1) Oil is available all over the world for direct concerns such as moving products to and from markets, thereby directly keeping world infrastructure alive, and 2) America's infrastructure is kept alive and working at a reasonable level of efficiency.
Now, the first point is self-explanatory, but the second, as self-serving (not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily) as it seems, also has a profound effect across the world. To wit: if the American economy is damaged, you can expect worldwide economic devastation. A dip in the stock market here gives brokers in London and Tokyo the cold shivers. A fluctuation in price here means people in our enormously affluent market quit buying quite so much, which means that folks in Venezuela experience untold economic hardship. People starve. Riots occur.
Now, as a global citizen, I view this little matter to be just as much a reason for action as any other. "No blood for oil?" Ha. Strategically guaranteeing that a madman can't choke off a significant part of the world's petroleum supplies, and that he can't destroy those reserves, AND that he can't indulge his expansionist tendencies to cover the Arabian Peninsula may be the most humanitarian approach we could possibly take.
Would you believe I'm not even a Republican? :)



Very thoughtful and balanced look at the most difficult topic of our time. I very much like your ideas on personal responsibility. Thanks!