(no subject)

[bellwether]

Do you remember where you were when we last declared war on Iraq and Hussein? I was in 8th grade, and was skiing down Buck Hill in Burnsville, MN with the ski club from my junior high. It was exhilarating to think that we were at war--I was worried that we'd never have a war again after Vietnam.... apparently things like Grenada, and all the other smaller conflicts in the 80s passed underneath my radar. I think I screamed "We're at war!" and sped down the hill fueled by an adrenaline surge.

Iraq was bad of course, because they invaded Kuwait--to steal their oil. Of course, we should be protecting Kuwait from the invaders! That just made sense--we were powerful and had troops. It was a mission of goodwill--and if we got some oil out of it, well, that only made sense.

This was Kevin in 8th grade. A diehard young Republican, born and bred.

Flash forward twelve years.

Today, I'm scared.

I'm scared that we are entering into a situation where the government of the most powerful nation on the planet will shortly be undetaking a "military operation" without the mandate of it's people. We are not an empire, and the business of empire-building is not what the United States is supposed to be built on. It seems like the administration is forgetting that. The refusal to build consensus and work with the international community is aggravating, and ultimately will prove harmful to our relations.

The protests yesterday in Westwood, last week at UCLA, and across the country are the one ray of light in this whole situation. People are talking about the ethics of war and whether one nation has the right to throw it's weight around and attempt to make international policy. However, every day that passes it becomes clearer and clearer that the current adminstration is not interested in the opinions of it's populace, nor even their well-being.

We lack a mandate. We are going to attack a nation that has done nothing to directly provoke us. Is Hussein a "bad guy?" Yes. He's done horrible things. Does that give us the right to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis? Not in my book.

This daily chant of "weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction" is beginning to sound like Peter's cry of "Wolf!" Hussein in all likelihood does have anthrax, VX gas, smallpox, or who knows what other biological or chemical weapons. He'd be a fool not to--this morning on NPR, Gore Vidal asked if you could really expect a nation not to protect itself when the US is on such an agressive stance? Will he use them? He hasn't in twelve years. However we certainly are giving him every provocation to do so now. This situation can only get much worse before it gets better.

It's still a battle for oil--with our oil supply predicted to be exhausted by 2020, we need more fuel. Anyone who says that the war in Iraq isn't about oil isn't thinking.

I'm scared. Today, I'm much more quiet than I was twelve years ago. Perhaps that's part of the problem.

Comments

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

7th grade: waiting for the schoolbus after my morning breakfast-and-CNN. It was my dad's birthday, and there was a rainbow. I found that strikingly odd. There was a walkout at my junior high later that day, but I didn't participate, because it seemed to me silly -- as in, if it had actually been about principles, I might have considered walking, but these were junior high schoolers -- it was an excuse to skip class and evade punishment.

I, of course, was at the time a diehard independent/Democrat, just like my parents ;). I find it astonishing that you were a Republican. But I guess you went to the military school, too, didn't you? People never cease to surprise.

I'm also a lot quieter on politics than I was at the time. Is that part of the problem? I don't know...it was easy to say loud and absolute things when I was twelve, because I was just learning how to see in shades of grey. Now I see in so many shades of grey, and with so little confidence in my own talents for politics, economics, and prognostication that I'm not willing to speak. I have high standards for political speech; I think people should only be speaking so loudly if they understand the issues better than others, if they have a well-reasoned critique, if they have an alternative to offer. I don't believe myself capable of meeting this standard on the vast majority of issues. Is being paralyzed by indecision morally better than stating claims I can't feel one hundred percent comfortable with? Maybe, maybe not...but it's what I have in my moral universe.

I think the world as a whole is lacking right now, lacking a true and mutual dialogue on complicated issues, people willing to state complex positions. I mean, there are some of them there, but too few, and they aren't dominant voices. It's one of the things that worries me about the anti-war protesters who have been so ubiquitous of late: the same broad umbrella that lets so many people protest shelters so many alternatives to war that few are articulated. And, at the same time, certain pathologies of American politics have kept our leadership from effectively articulating a pro-war position. I think many cases on all sides could be well-made (which would leave me just as unmoored as before, unable to accept one as wholly right or reject one as wholly wrong, drowned in shades of grey), but I have seen few cases truly made at all.

(Maybe I'm too hung up on the moral and philosophical cases. It is a battle for oil -- for France and Russia as much as for America. But I'm more interested in the ideologies of just war, articulation of a moral defense for breaches of sovereignty, the proxy war fought over the shape of the post-Cold-War world and the limits on a sole superpower's strength...hopelessly abstract and philosophical things I can't get my brain around. But would it help to look at the pragmatics, the history of oil and nukes and intervention and aid? Probably not, because everyone has culpability there, too, and once again there's no immaculate solution.)

But to pick up the main thread again -- if you are a person who can articulate complex cases clearly and without vitriol, then my world at any rate would be made better, and in my opinion the world at large would be. I see your case against war -- what's your case for an alternative?

[bellwethr.livejournal.com]

Your thoughts are well spoken. I disagree about the lack an international dialogue--I think that there is an ongoing debate about the complicated issued surrounding the current situation. However, our leaders in their infinite wisdom have chosen to ignore the discussion when it was clear that it wasn't going the way they wanted.

I was impressed with Chile's willingness to put forth a plan; secondary members of the security council often seem marginalized next to the veto powers. I respect their willingness to come forward and suggest that maybe the United States should listen to someone else for a change. Bush's offhand rejection of their proposal left me with a sour taste.

Military school: *laugh* yup. Actually, military school was where I figured out that maybe conservatism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. High school was where I met two guys, Jim and Joe Jordan, who forever changed my views on politics, international affairs, and social issues. St. Thomas was good for me--it exposed me to conservative idiots, and a pair of extremely intelligent liberals. *grin* Also, dating Alison for the last four years has affected my politics more than I'd care to admit. She's extremely bright, and passionated about her causes. I may not always agree with her, but I do respect her opinions.

As far as speaking out--my thoughts are that at this point, the more voices the better. We need the administration to be aware of the extent to which the populace does not support the current policies.

Your point on just war is interesting--that really seems to be the important issue that the international dialogue should be exploring: when is it just to go to war? at what point should the international community step in to step human rights abuses? These are extraordinarily hard questions.