Last week President Obama announced his much anticipated plan to extricate the
I’m not a strategist. I’m not a political analyst.
I am a human being.
I know this because there are more human rights documents now than any other time in our history (Geiger 2000) – each filled with definitions, explanations and examples of what constitutes humanness and the rights associated therewith. However, after sifting through the rhetoric and digging through their debris, you will find the contents of those documents buried right next to the very bodies they were developed to protect: mostly women… and children. Ostracized, beaten, and victimized in peace-time there lives should not be further subjugated by war and it’s crimes.
War is not the Hollywood-esc-romanticized barbarism of Gladiator where two opposing sides meet face to face until “the death” – defeat and surrender. It is, as it has always been, a mix of technologically advanced calamity (Diamond 1999) and merciless abuse and torture (
War is the invention of the desperate. There are no victors in war and the victims have all-too-familiar faces. No matter their color or race, age, religious belief, social or political stature – there is no difference between them and us. Thus, it is imperative that we remain vigilant about war and its manifestation through global illiteracy that would have too many people thinking that military strength is the way to peace (Miles 2000, Macedo 2006).
Peace is not a reward. It is not a right defined by mere documents that too many cannot read nor fully embrace even if they tried (this does not preclude a personal desire to have peace); however, peace cannot be limited to buzzwords, catch-phrases, or social-political welfare for free-press and celebrity. The road to peace does not have to be so long or as destructive as long as we work earnestly toward social justice (Hammad 2005) and continue to put pressure on the political administration to seek alternatives to war; unless we prefer to live in a vicious cycle of retaliation and destruction.
Holly Tomlin
BW 706, Blog 4
References
Diamond J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc; 1999.
Geiger HJ. The Impact of War on Human Rights. In: Levy BS and Sidel VW, eds. War and Public Health. Updated Edition. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000: 39 - 50.
Hammad S. First Writing Since. In: Zaatar Diva. New York, NY: Ram Devineni; 2005: 98 - 102.
Macedo D. Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed to Know. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 2006.
Miles L. Education for Peace. In: Levy BS and Sidel VW, eds. War and Public Health. Updated Edition. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000: 323 - 335.
Watts S. Epidemics and History: Disease, Power and Imperialism. Great Britain: Redwood Books, Wiltshire; 1997.
6 comments:
You wrote, "However, after sifting through the rhetoric and digging through their debris, you will find the contents of those documents buried right next to the very bodies they were developed to protect: mostly women… and children. Ostracized, beaten, and victimized in peace-time there lives should not be further subjugated by war and it’s crimes."
I assume you are alluding to predator drones that fire on safe houses where terrorists are hiding (behind women and children) in the ungoverned regions of Pakistan.
No one thinks war is a great thing. However, it is sometimes necessary. To think that peace is always the answer and war is never the answer is inconsistent with reality.
While there were valid criticisms and concerns about the War in Iraq, the goals of our mission in Afghanistan are clearly and morally right. One cannot use "social justice" as a tool against people who do not believe in social justice. We are fighting people who perpetrate the most systemic and brutal oppression of women in history. Under the Taliban, honor killings against women, including stonings and beheadings, were routine for "crimes" such as infidelity and daring to choose one's own mate. We are dealing with the lowest of the low here (I know many think that the U.S. is the lowest of the low, but few things are farther from the truth). These "human beings" conduct operations behind schools, putting children directly in the line of fire, because they know we will be reluctant to fire upon them. If we do fire upon them, then they claim that we killed children. Their extreme, evil and calculating cynicism disqualifies them from any lofty considerations. They conduct operations from Mosques, trying to take advantage of our (admittedly calculated) respect for their religion.
Our former President was often shortsighted and made many mistakes, and many of his policies have been deservedly discredited. However, make no mistake; the people we are fighting ARE evil.
Social justice is a goal, an end in itself. When dealing with decent people, it can be used as a tool and is a self-fulfilling means to that end.
However, when dealing with evil people such as those we are fighting in the ungoverned regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, social justice will not produce the desired results.
So, Bill, are you arguing that the 'ends justify the means'? ;>)
An argument that includes "morality" and "evil " is difficult for me to follow-up on since those terms are part of a personal sentiment that I do not agree with. Especially, when in war similar tactics of destruction are committed by the US (Agent Orange in Vietnam and similar agents in Dessert Storm, the physically debilitating aftermath of Pearl Harbor, etc.).
However, I do not argue that there is a 'time and place' for War. The best time for an escalated/"impactful" war in Afghanistan was 8 years ago when the rationale was clearly justified and supported by the majority of people throughout the world. Although the atrocities commited against Afghani women and children by their own laws and military are incomprehensible to nearly anyone with a pulse, this is most assuredly not the reason we are 'escalating efforts.' Lets be honest, in a nutshell we are going back to finish the job that was 'botched' 8 years ago. Now because of the protracted nature of destruction we do have the added burden of trying to "stabilize" an entire region thats sitting on a powder keg. The plight and welfare of Afghani women and children were by no means a concern of the US before 9/11 (despite the many cries from credible international organizations including Amnesty International) and is, thus, a secondary justification for our presence.
Furthermore, I'm not arguing that 'social justice' is the only tool in the arsenal of strategic efforts but it is a weapon worth exploring in collaboration with measures of strategic might which does not have to end in mass destruction and more terroism. And I'm not that naive to believe in the Utopia / "coom-by-ya" definition of peace; however, the process towards attaining peace or just plain stability can be just as rewarding and fulfilling on an individual and collective level when every possible option is explored.
I CAN be saying that the "ends justify the means," depending on how it is defined.
I am wary of using the phrase "ends justify the means," because it is often interpreted as indifference to collateral damage just as long as one reaches the desired ends.
If one defines "ends justify the means" as "in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs," then I do not believe that the ends justify the means. That attitude classifies consequences into two groups, significant and insignificant, without acknowledging degrees of "significance." It also does not contemplate the consequences that the means have outside of the focus of the desired ends.
However, just as long as EVERY end resulting from an action is weighed (as opposed to only weighing end which was the original focus), then yes, I would agree that the "ends justify the means"
Trashing individual rights for “the greater good” results in weakened individual rights for us all and thus an actual “lesser good.” “The greater good” is often cover for “what benefits me at your expense.”
As finite beings, we must make choices. "Having it all" and "the perfect situation" really do not exist.
For instance, many times in our history, the U.S. supported bad regimes to neutralize or defeat regimes that were worse. We supported the Soviet Union during World War II, even though Stalin killed many times more than Hitler ever did. We perceived Germany as the greater immediate threat. We used Atomic weapons against Japan to end the war, saving millions of American and Japanese lives. (Estimates for the invasion of Japan were for 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 American dead. Compare that the 4,500 who sacrificed their lives in Iraq.) Using those weapons also freed us from the need to surrender parts of Japan to the Soviets as the Soviets joined the final invasion. With Hitler gone, the biggest threat to our liberty was the Soviet Union and communism. We needed to bolster our allies in Europe, so we supported France in their efforts to retain Vietnam, leading to our involvement in that debacle. We did business with the South African government in the 1980’s, using them to manipulate the world’s gold supply to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. I could go on.
Using the terms “morality” and “evil” IS valid in ethical discussions. Those who wish to lessen our critical skills have managed to falsely redefine those words as indicative of "religious intolerance." Morality and evil are valid terms outside of a religious context. Holly, those terms should not be non-starters for you.
Holly, you do not think that the Taliban is evil? Is that what you are saying? You do not think those that perpetrated 9/11 were evil? (I know it is currently fashionable to ridicule those who still have strong feelings about 9/11, but fashion has never been a primary consideration for me.)
The rationale for the war in Afghanistan is STILL clearly justified. There may have been poor execution, but the reasons have never changed. I am not sure what you mean by “going back to Afghanistan.” We never left. The job is unfinished. Those people have fought off foreigners for thousands of years. That is why Osama Bin Laden based himself there. Our task is Herculean, but we cannot fail. Afghanistan is not similar to Vietnam. In Vietnam, those people had no desire to attack us. The people we are fighting in Afghanistan DID attack us. The necessity of our effort in Afghanistan is not debatable like in Iraq or Vietnam. Our efforts in Afghanistan may even be more important to the long-term future of our Republic than our efforts in World War II.
Our indifference toward what the Taliban did to its citizens before 9/11 does not detract from the importance and validity of our mission now.
I agree that, in the right situations, “social justice” (the literal definition not the ideology-laden definition) is the preferred method to bring about social change. However, that method requires at least SOME shared goals. We have NO shared goals with these people. We also do not have the luxury of time in waiting for social justice to take its course.
I agree with Bill that although war leaves in its path destruction and pain, it is sometimes necessary to restore and protect peace. I know that is somewhat of a crazy idea that we must have war to achieve peace, but in some cases, it is true (regardless of how ridiculous the statement).
However, I am not sure that I would classify my thoughts as the ends justify the means, because in all situations it does not. I guess my stance is that sure, sometimes, the ends does justify the means, based on the individual situation. War is necessary, and in this case, the end (which will hopefully be peace with those regions) will justify the means(war).
Our presence in Afghanistan is warranted and much needed. The people in these regions use their religion as a means to destroy and kill those who disagree with their message and/or do not support it. My feelings are the same as Bill's - the people involved in these terroristic attacks driven by hate are evil.
I am a Christian and I do believe that war is necessary. Of course, most people will say that fighting and war is against the message preached by Christ followers, but we must remember that in the Bible, wars were fought all the time. God annointed leaders and warriors in battle (like David, Samuel, Joshua, Samson, and the list goes on) to defend their country and the word of God and defeat the enemy.
When dealing with evil and the enemy, remember that he will show no mercy. So, we must be prepared to defend ourselves, our country, our beliefs, and our way of life. If the only way to do that is through war, then war is necessary. It is the necessary evil.
This post prompted great discussion!
We could have a great philosophical discussion on the views of Gandhi vs Jinnah, but that would be straying quite a bit from bioethics and take up more than an entire semester~!
Post a Comment