Letters to the Editor
-
About just wars and causus beli
I note the debate about grounds for invading a country and wish to comment. A great fear of mine about the Iraq debacle is that it has discredited the very notion of humanitarian military intervention.
The classic Just War theory is outlined by other posters here, namely that a nation must be acting in self-defence, either in response to an attack or a looming actual invasion (say, such as the 6 days war). I agree with this generally, but I am not such a fan of unlimited state sovereignty to commit atrocity within its borders.
I won't essay what grounds and mechanisms should be used to determine when humanitarian military intervention should be attempted justly, I just wish to argue that some conditions exist where it would be. Kosovo in 1999 might pass or fail that bar for different observers, and Iraq in 2003 most definitely fails that bar in my estimation.
As an aside, the general incompetence of the Bush Administration in running the Iraq invasion and occupation, particularly when viewed from a humanitarian perspective (eg they secured the oil ministry but not the museum of civilization) certainly doesn't help the case.
So that suggests that a just humanitarian intervention also requires sincerity on the part of the invaders towards that goal, and not that it be used as cover for other goals (oil).
It's possible the grounds for this may eclipse the ability of humans to run such a thing. I've heard not unconvincing arguments that for any good the Afghanistan invasion may have done, it probably killed more people than the Taliban would have if left in place.
(Of course, Afghanistan was not justified solely on humanitarian grounds, as there is a case about its support for Al Qaeda and thus that the Taliban were a state aggressor in themselves).
So I could understand someone arguing that the conditions for a just humanitarian military overthrow of a despotic or genocidal regime are too high for humans to ever achieve it, that the costs of such a war will always eclipse the benefits, but I do not accept the argument that sovereignty is always supreme, and thus no other state has the right to intervene for that reason.
The difference may not matter in practice, but the underlying morality is important. If we do not have the right to invade a country killing its citizens for absolute classic sovereignty reasons, than we do not have the right to send aid to opposition movements or set up broadcasts just over their borders or a host of other non-violent forms of intervention. If we argue that military invasion just makes things worse but we do have a right to intervene short of that where we think we can do more good than harm than our options are not so restricted.
-
Re: Timberman
Oh yes, you are correct. My father is a great example of someone who had to work his whole life, from the ground up, and then become resentful of others in the same struggle. Even after we went broke and he had to get a few govt "handouts" he still swore by the republican mantra. The hypocracy of his stance never once seemed to bother him, even when it was pointed out to him many times.
As with all things human one can only generalize. And just like a higher education TENDS to make one more liberal, and just like exposure to different types of people tends to make one more accepting, i think that having to struggle on ones own TENDS to make on appreciate certain liberal stances.
For example, how many people who claim to be republican turn around and support things like S.S., or Schip for that matter? How many go straight to the unemployment office when they are laid off? I think with many of these types of people what you get is a cry for CREDIT. They want their sacrifices and sufferings acknowledged, and for whatever reason, don't feel that they are.
I still think on the majority of occasions, the experience of struggle and becoming self realized makes a person more open to liberal ideology than not. But, like Clarence Thomas, there are always people who seam to go the opposite route.
-
East coast Jewish mothers revisited
Almost all the little twits mentioned in this thread are Jewish and from the east coast. Kristol, Goldberg, the Kagans, ad nauseum . It sounds like broadbrushing an entire population segment, but Jewish east coast mothers are notorious for being grossly overprotective of their sons, for overcuddling them and for trying to run their life for them. Having been born in California to Jewish parents, I can see notice the difference clearly. My parents encouraged mt to take risks, encouraged me to play sports, even those with a high risk of injury. Although Socialists, they taught me that you can't spend more than you earn, don't expect handouts from others, including your parents, and count on others to pave your way for you. My mom would always say:'achieve everything on your own and it would feel like it really belongs to you'. I had to work after school hours while in HS and through college to pay my way, because my parents wanted me to get used to being self-reliant from a young age. Now contrast that with the nepotistic overcuddled armchair warriors from the east cast and you will understand why they ended up that way.
-
@ 6stringer
I probably should have added that although I hated his politics, I loved the guy himself; he was one of the most interesting people I ever met, and more than generous to his friends.
And you're right; he did feel entitled to respect for his accomplishments, and didn't think he ever got it. I suspect that he was right about that, although I certainly respected him, and I never met anyone who knew him who didn't.
-
@scientician
Wow! Thanks for the extremely flattering referral. When I wrote that post I thought, "I think I'm right about this as a general principle, but it's just going to get lost in the UT comment stream and I or someone else will have to make the same point again, ad nauseum. I never dreamed that someone else would seize upon the point. Thanks.