A Global Citizen Thinks About War
Published February 04, 2003
So are we making progress after all? Without a doubt. The United States is itself the greatest example of that progress, because here all people are owed government protection of their basic human rights regardless of race, religion, color, sex, age, caste, or station of birth. Persecuted refugees from the world over have flocked to the United States for decades because of this.
But a global war of which Iraq may only become the third (after 9/11 and Afghanistan) major battlefield threatens to reverse this progress. The erosion of human rights of both U.S. citizens and immigrants, which is already underway in this country, is one sign of that. So are the possible deaths - i.e., the loss of the right to life - of innocents in Iraq. I am not saying that any amount of backsliding on human rights is indefensible; if the threat to global society is big enough, surely some amount of loss is acceptable. But if those rights are being eroded anywhere, as they are now, it should be very carefully observed and monitored, like a persistent low grade fever.
To extend the metaphor, such a fever should only be tolerated for a transitional period of time, after which the patient recovers and goes on to gain new heights of health. When will the present period of global rights retraction be over? Have we set time limits and goals? If not, why not?
XVII
If the war happens it will be tragic and God-damned, because innocents will surely die. But if it happens, its explicit goal should be not simply the eradication of Saddam as a potential nuclear threat, which is spurious because we all understand that Saddam is deterrable, as he has been for thirty years. Rather, it should be done for the express purpose of the liberation of the people of Iraq; and it should be done without gloating or breast-beating; and only after longer deliberation and with a genuine commitment to long-term support of liberal democracy in the Middle East.
XVIII
And if the war does happen, as seems certain, once the bombs start to fall there will be only one question, which is, what can we do now?
- 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 on this articleComments
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? :)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/3015)
Very thoughtful and balanced look at the most difficult topic of our time. I very much like your ideas on personal responsibility. Thanks!