Many of you may have already read the Prophet’s June 2007 Ensign article on war. The primary message from this article is clearly to discuss the war that is going on around us every day — ie, the war between the forces of good and evil. Much of that war is not visible to us and is primarily a battle for our souls.
But President Hinckley takes time to repeat themes he made in his April 2003 conference address, comments that many interpreted to provide justification for the Iraq war.
Let me make this very clear right from the start: I do not think President Hinckley is launching an all-out battle to justify President Bush, the Republicans or the war in Iraq.
However, I do believe he is reminding us of two extremely important messages:
1)We spirits have lived with war constantly, and we will continue to live with war. The war may not involve bombs and bullets, but it is a war nonetheless. It is important to be on the right side in this war.
2)The Lord supports free agency and is opposed to compulsion. See, for example, the following message from the Prophet:
The war goes on. It is waged across the world over the issues of agency and compulsion. It is waged by an army of missionaries over the issues of truth and error. It is waged in our own lives, day in and day out, in our homes, in our work, in our school associations; it is waged over questions of love and respect, of loyalty and fidelity, of obedience and integrity. We are all involved in it—child, youth, or adult, each of us. We are winning, and the future never looked brighter.
There are a few messages I have chosen to take away from this most recent communication from the prophet:
A)While we are followers of the Prince of Peace, the prophet does not support pacifism on Earth at this particular time. When I say “pacifism,” I mean a pacifism that rejects all war similar to the Amish.
B)Even though public opinion is turning against the war in Iraq and perhaps even the war on terror, the prophet has not significantly changed his opinion on this issue since April 2003.
C)Wars that increase personal freedom are sometimes justified simply on the basis that free agency is augmented and compulsion decreased.
D)We need to be ever more vigilant in our awareness that Satan is waging a war for our souls and will try to convince us to go down the wrong path. He truly is at war with God’s people, and even though we can’t see it we can feel its effects around us when people stray from righteousness.
Again, President Hinckley’s primary message is associated with D) above. But I think A-C are also relevant and worthy of discussion.
I would ask those who disagree to not disagree disagreeably. Comments with personal insults aimed at me or other commentators will be deleted. Please keep on-topic. If you disagree, please provide evidence from the prophet’s talks or other Church-related sources. Thanks.
FWIW, this month’s message is a revision of President Hinckley’s talk from the October 1986 General Conference, “The War We are Winning.”
Justin, thanks for that. The two talks are virtually the same with just a few new historical details. Interesting that the prophet would release this talk again at this time.
When Gordon B. Hinckley spoke in April 2003, I was personally struck by the maleable nature of his talk. Any member of the church, regardless of their position on the then-looming war, could find something in that talk to support their view. Notably, he made it clear that differing viewpoints on the matter were not signs of apostacy, etc.
At the time, I was serving as a stake executive secretary. The Seventy to whom our stake president reported informed us of a meeting of general authorities, in which Hinckley said that this war would possibly open up the Middle East to missionary efforts, but that the United States would “never again be seen as the moral authority in the world.” This viewpoint certainly didn’t make it into the Ensign, but I found it interesting. At the least, it sounds like less than a ringing endorsement of the war, or at least of U.S. methods which would be employed therein.
Insofar as some (such as you, Geoff) might see this Ensign message as an expression of support for the ongoing war in Iraq, do you think the timing might have some relationship to the recent appearance of Dick Cheney at BYU, and its accompanying “courtesy visit” to LDS HQ?
Thnks for bringing this to my attention. I had not read the article up until now. I do have a question though, I do not see how you got point a-c from this article? Are you saying that Pres. Hinkley addresses these points in this article, or are you inferring them from your understanding? I did not see anywhere where he alludes to those points A-C, nor have I heard Pres. Hinkley comment on those points. So are they your points or are you saying tha tthye are his?
Nick, I would be very cautious in how I describe this article. I don’t necessarily see it as “an expression of support for the ongoing war in Iraq.” I definitely see it as supporting some wars that increase freedom. I personally see the war in Iraq as part of the struggle to increase freedom, but the prophet has not said that clearly, so I would be cautious about putting words in his mouth.
I don’t see the prophet as being affected by Cheney’s visit.
I would also agree with you about the April 2003 talk. I was in Brazil at the time, and few Brazilians (who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq invasion) saw it as supporting the war, whereas I (who supported the invasion) saw it just the opposite way, so it is true different people took away different things from the talk. I think a careful reading of the talk definitely supports your point, ie, differing viewpoints are allowed by faithful Saints. But I also believe a careful reading shows the prophet is definitely not condemning the war in any way and is indeed endorsing wars that increase personal freedom.
Adam, great question #4, and I would say points A-B are my personal inferences and C) is implied in the article and D) is definitely the main point of the article.
A-B are relevant because there has been a lot of discussion and/or speculation on these issues with regard to Iraq.
Following up on #7, I think it is extremely significant that the prophet includes the line:
“The war goes on. It is waged across the world over the issues of agency and compulsion.”
This clearly seems to me a reference to wars of liberation, wars that bring an increase of personal freedom and overthrow those (ie dictators) who would decrease personal freedom. It seems to me the prophet is saying the forces of righteousness are in favor of an increase in personal freedom while Satan opposes an increase in personal freedom.
That is my personal take on that line.
The Lord supports free agency and is opposed to compulsion.
War being, of course, the ultimate form of compulsion. We can’t reason with you (or rather, we prefer not to go that hard route), so now we have to kill you.
Mark N, I would agree with you that dictators primarily choose compulsion. And the Prophet is clearly opposed to that. I read your comment to say that the Prophet therefore opposes all war, but I find no justification for that position in the two articles I link or indeed in any of his comments ever.
Geoff,
What is President Hinckley referring to here in this passage?
I agree with Mark. War is the ultimate form of compulsion, hence the ultimate contradiction in terms.
I believe if President Hinckley is going to release a talk about a totally different situation, that of the Cold War, and reference it to today’s “war on terror,” he needs to clarify his remarks, because, frankly speaking, we’re not doing very well at ending terror. In fact, as numerous studies and charts have shown, terrorism has increased, significantly since we invaded Iraq. It seems our invasion of Iraq has produced the very opposite thing war proponents were hoping for, and that is an increase in terror, an increase in fear, and less freedoms for the peoples of the world. For example, before the war in Iraq, habeas corpus, one of the standard bearers of freedom from tyranny was taken from us by our government. How exactly is that a progress towards freedom?
Statements like “The devastation of war seems so unnecessary and such a terrible waste of human life and national resources. We ask, will this terrible, destructive way of handling disagreements among the sons and daughters of God ever end?” and “But the war did not end. It abated somewhat, and we’re grateful for that” don’t seem to provide much of a case for war. And even when he expresses support for military adventures like the Revolutionary War, Hinckley also mentions the fact that the resulting “government of the nation had come against our people, determined to destroy this Church as an organization.”
In short, I find no justification for your conclusion that the prophet supports the Iraq war on the grounds that it had a dictator who opposed personal freedomes.
I think you will find many more examples of church leaders preferring to work with local leaders, regardless of their oppressive policies, rather than advocating wars of liberation. A few examples come to mind like East Germany (even though it was communist) and Chile under Pinochet (probably because he was anti-communist, church leaders practically fell over themselves gushing with praise for him. Pinochet responded by granting Mormons privileges.).
Peter, if you read the entire articles I linked, I cannot see how you can come to that conclusion. How about this:
“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”
Or this:
“It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”
That seems pretty clear to me.
But as I say in #5, it is possible for people to read the same talk and come to different conclusions. I’ve seen that illustrated many times. I respect your viewpoint even though I don’t agree with it.
It seems that with respect to this war, with the lack of direction coming from the Prophet, we’d have to fall back on default instructions from the Lord regarding war in D&C 98 where he says:
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.
Curtis,
America certainly did not follow the recommendations the Lord laid out in D&C 98 vis a vis Iraq.
Curtis, I know you are a member in good standing, and I respect your well-thought-out opinions, although I disagree with them. Are you saying you can interpret the scriptures and the direction of the Lord better than the prophet?
So I read the talk carefully, and, well, I just can’t see where President Hinckley has tied his “war” with the physical wars we are facing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon in Iran).
He later gives an example of just what kind of “war” he is referring to:
And who is on the side of good in this “war?”
The priesthood bearers and their spouses.
President Hinckley is in no way referring to America’s aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, Geoff. He’s referring to the battle we each must make against hatred, against violence, against that which is evil. So my question to you, and this is an honest question, why do you seek more justification for physical war when the prophet speaks about a wholly different kind of war?
Dan, I would kindly ask you to re-read my post and my comments on this thread. That is the extent to which I am willing to engage you in discussion. There is simply no way we will ever find any agreement on this issue, and discussion with you is a waste of time for me. If it makes you feel better, you can believe you have “won” the argument because I am not willing to argue with you. Really. You won.
In the meantime, unlike past threads, this thread will not get into personal attacks on me or other commentators. That means calling me out by name or trying to “argue to the death” against people with whom you disagree. You have not crossed the line yet, so this is just a warning. Any personal attacks will be deleted. I hope you can abide by those rules.
Geoff,
The Prophet hasn’t really given us much direction as to how our opinions should lean as to the merit of this war. He has not said that we should be for or against it. He has told us that it is ok to be a dissenter as long as we don’t break any laws. He has told us to pray for both the people involved. As far as I can see, this is about as far as the direction from the first presidency has been on this war. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Without direction from the prophet otherwise then, I would assume that our default position lies within revealed truth found in the scriptures. It appears that the default constitution of the Lord on war appears in D&C 98.
I do not feel I can interpret scriptures and direction from the Lord better than the prophet… and have not done any interpreting that would argue against what the prophet has given us as official church doctrine as far as I can tell. Please let me know if I am incorrect, and let me know if I am somehow mistaken in my interpretation of scripture.
Of the four messages you’ve taken, I can only see D actually applying to the talk after reading it twice. So I see nothing to discuss because as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with that statement. It’s a pretty long stretch to get to A-C, sorry Geoff.
Geoff,
I agree with others in the thread that you are reading far too much into the Ensign article. With the exception of the first two paragraphs, President Hinckley is writing exclusively about spiritual warfare.
And those opening to paragraphs do not speak well of war, its methods, or its results:
You got really touchy in your comment #17, but I don’t see any “personal attack” coming from Dan at all. He’s asking a legitimate question: Why do you see this most recent article as a justification for current U.S. military actions in Iraq?
Curtis, thanks for this clarification. There are a lot of people who agree with you, including most of the Saints overseas, who, based on my experience traveling abroad, oppose the Iraq war. So, please don’t misunderstand me: I think the primary message we all should have is that you can disagree and oppose or support the Iraq war and still be a member in good standing. The reason for my question was that your comment was unclear to me. I thought you were saying that you disagreed with the prophet and that you were discounting his opinion. I understand your position now, and it is very clear. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
My personal interpretation — and the interpretation of many, many people — of the April 2003 conference talk just as Iraq was starting is that Pres. Hinckley was justifying wars such as Iraq.
Again, I quote from that talk:
“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”
Given the timing, just as we are invading Iraq, it seems very clear to me what Pres. Hinckley’s message was.
There have been rumors since then on the Bloggernacle that President Hinckley has turned against the war. I think this Ensign article is a sign that he has not. Otherwise, we would have had a very different kind of article in this month’s Ensign.
I honor you and other Saints for being in favor of peace. Part of me wants to become a complete pacifist. I really admire Gandhi, and of course my Savior never fought in a war. There are admirable pacifists in the Book of Mormon. I certainly don’t want my two sons to ever have to fight in a war.
But after reading the prophet’s comments in context, and studying the Bible and the BoM and history very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that there simply are times when it is necessary to go to war to stop even greater bloodshed. Just imagine if we had overthrown Hitler in 1933 or Stalin in the 1920s or Mao in 1948 — imagine how many millions of our brothers and sisters we could have saved.
Of course that argument can be taken even further — imagine if we had overthrown Saddam in 1991, for example. Just imagine how many Shiites and Kurds would have been saved during the 1990s.
I don’t think the prophet will ever come out explicitly and say: “I favor the Iraq war.” I think his comments are open to interpretation. I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.
But I support our activities in Iraq precisely because I am against greater bloodshed and because I oppose tyranny and oppression. I believe from the bottom of my heart, with all sincerity, that if we do not defeat terrorism in Iraq today my sons and daughters will be fighting against terrorism in 20 years. And it will probably not be in Iraq but may even be in America. I shudder to imagine that.
It’s too bad that President Hinckley’s talk was not about the war in Iraq.
Mike, #20, I respect your viewpoint, and you make some valid arguments, as always. JJohnsen, #19, basically agrees with you. I agree different people will interpret talks different ways. I find it interesting that there is no evidence that the prophet has changed his viewpoints from April 2003. There has been a lot of speculation that he has.
As for Mike Parker’s comment at the end of #20, there is a lot of history that you may not be aware of. Believe me, my comment was pretty restrained given some of that history. Let’s leave it at that.
When I read the article on the ensign ( In fact, today ) .. I couldn’t hold back the thought that what he was referring to the physical wars as wars of perdition, with a lost sense for fighting for the wrongful purposes. He then made an analogy about the wars that we are all fighting in the background, that of our souls. Those are two distinct topics. The war that The United States is fighting in the Iraq, currently labeled as War On Terror, by all means has a political persuasion into it. Politics and current war can have a whole total meaning into the first persuasions into going to war and what the reasons were.. which by today have all been fraud intelligence. This is an open opinion from each individual.
Now Geoff, I do remember Pres. Hinckley supporting a war only for the reasons of defense, which again, anyone can bring a set of ideology’s of why are we in this war in the first place.
In other words, I don’t really see any stance but neutrality on Pres. Hinckley’s comments, although Im sure that members over seas or even within the United States that Pres. Hinckley is referring to the wrongdoing by United States behalf by creating all this discomfort with the current held war, but then there are those like you that can find support for the war.
What I see in this Article is him talking about the wars atrocities in general, and then focusing on the war that we are all in, which is the one of ours souls.
Now I hope this comment doesn’t come off as offensive 🙂
Nope, Felipe. Not offensive. Thanks for your input. Most people who have commented so far agree with you. 🙂
While, as I said, the April 2003 talk allowed anyone to hear what they wanted to hear, I think it also is fair to say that Hinckley more than hinted his *personal* support (at that time, perhaps based on the blatant lies then told to the American people) for the invasion of Iraq. Whether he feels the same today is another question.
Personally, I’m just glad that he specifically talked about the freedom to “faithfully” disagree on the subject. Had he not done so, even his mere hinting of his personal opinion would have been enough for republican LDS to start verbally bashing those LDS who disagreed with the invasion.
I wonder what it’d take for LDS people to start verbally bashing fellow Latter-day Saints who agreed with the invasion.
Sadly, I’ve been in classes where hard-line supporters have brought the topic into discussions going as far as saying that one needs to support Bush if all the sources said it should be so ( this was way back ).. minutes later he was interrupted and corrected by members in the class that such things should not be discussed in class as to who should endorse who.. Church was not meant for that. So to comment #27, you can expect anything from both sides of the isle.. I’ve heard some very harsh things from those for the invasion too, so I wouldn’t be surprise to see otherwise from the other side. But hey, this is a discussions board to discuss things that one wouldn’t normally do in Church heh.
Geoff #21: “I honor you and other Saints for being in favor of peace. Part of me wants to become a complete pacifist. I really admire Gandhi, and of course my Savior never fought in a war. There are admirable pacifists in the Book of Mormon.”
Geoff, one of the persistent myths about those (like myself) who oppose the Iraq war is that we are all pacifists; that we oppose war of any kind.
But I think I speak for many when I say this is not the case. I am not opposed to war when it is in defense of our families, our homes, and our freedoms. When attacked, we may defend ourselves. As Latter-day Saints, we should use D&C 98 as our guide to determine the appropriate response.
As has been discussed here ad infinitum, the Iraq invasion was, by any definition of the word, not a defensive war. It was a Wilsonian pipe dream. It was — and remains — immoral, unrighteous, illegal, and just a plain bad idea. It has been horribly unfortunate that 3,500 Americans and 70,000 Iraqis have had to give their lives* before most Americans have come to understand that.
(*Sources:
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ )
Mike,
That 70,000 number is a very conservative estimate mind you. Good points though.
Mike, #29, you have laid out your opposition to the war in many different discussions quite eloquently. I understand that you and many others who oppose the war are not complete pacifists. My comment was aimed primarily at comments like #8, which use slogans such as “war is compulsion, therefore we should oppose war.” Well, we should certainly oppose some war, but there are wars that are justified and indeed necessary.
I don’t buy that, and not only because I’d expect some clear guidance from the leadership of the church if it was so clear cut as you make it seem.
Throw out the start of the War and just focus on where we are today, with our troops in Iraq fighting against an insurgency that is attempting to take down their democratically elected government.
We have evil men over there that are blowing up innocent women and children. Those are the people we are fighting, and our soldiers are putting their lives at risk by taking extra caution to not inflict harm on the civilian population as we do so. How can such motive be construed as immoral or unrighteous?
Perhaps the original Iraq War was not a defensive war, as you say the point has been argued back and forth for years so let’s put that aside for now. But the current stage of the Iraq War is most definitely a defensive one in that we are defending the Iraqi government and people. We are entitled to defend our allies, and to defend the weak. We do not have to turn our backs and allow others to suffer simply because we are not the ones that are currently being attacked.
Aluwid, I agree with you 100 percent. It’s nice to have some support every once in a while. The Bloggernacle can be a very lonely place for a conservative (btw, that’s OK because I know many congregations are primarily conservative, and it’s a good thing that people of other political persuasions have someplace where THEY don’t feel so lonely).
When I read the June 2007 Ensign article, I had a few thoughts. 1)I thought, “wow, the prophet still stands by his April 2003 talk,” 2) “the prophet is pointing out that the righteous spirits of God will always be at war against the evil and we need to know that and be prepared.” 3)”the prophet is reminding us again that wars that support freedom are righteous.”
Now, obviously, if you read this thread, very few people agree with my interpretation of the talk. And I have said several times that it is OK for people to hear the same talk and go away with different interpretations.
What were your interpretations of the talk? Did you share any of my thoughts or am I alone in thinking this way?
Geoff,
I agree with you on A and C. This line in particular stood out in giving the message behind the justice of some wars:
“There came a time of renaissance, with struggles for liberty struggles for which much of blood and sacrifice was paid.”
As for #B as much as I’d like to see it given the degree of hostility that I feel from others for supporting our continued operations in Iraq, I’m not sure you can draw that conclusion from this article. His main thrust of his talk was on the Spiritual War that has always existed, and I don’t see anything that can be concretely linked towards a message that the Iraq War itself is just. Yes I do see a theme of wars against oppression being justified, but that can be spun either way depending on what you think America is doing in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t believe that he has really changed his mind, I just don’t see any evidence either way in this talk.
#D is evident throughout his talk so I definitely agree with you there.
My main takeaways from the talk are:
A. War is a tragic part of mortality. The world would be a better place without it.
B. Sometimes mortal wars are just.
C. There is an eternal Spiritual War that is even more crucial than any mortal war.
The most interesting lines for me are: “The war goes on. It is waged across the world over the issues of agency and compulsion.” That sounds more like it’s talking about mortal wars. I don’t generally think of compulsion when thinking of the Spiritual War, I think of agency yes, but not compulsion. Yet it’s in the middle of a paragraph on Spiritual Wars which to me provides another tie between just mortal wars and the overall Spiritual War that we are in.
Thanks. Good analysis. We are in agreement on the issue of “agency and compulsion.” For me, that clearly was an inference to mortal wars in which the righteous are on the side of increasing freedom. I can understand those who probably will say this was simply a reference to Satan’s plan, which decreases agency and forces compulsion. But personally I was struck with the “world over” phrase, meaning he was referring to mortal wars.
Again, as I’ve written several times now, the primary point of the talk was on spiritual wars. I don’t want to be misunderstood.
To number #32, President Hinckley clearly said to respect the stance of other members on the subject of America going to war, implying that there was nothing wrong with it. Of-course the prophet won’t say go for it or say it’s totally wrong. Why?!?! First of all because it would imply getting into politics.
At the start of the war, there was a broad spectrum of people and countries opposed to the war. The path that was taken was in all means Illegal in international law. The US had full support for the war on Afghanistan and War against the Al Quaida Cell and terrorist as a whole world-wide. It had a strong support, it unified parties and the American people.
Today, you can see the reasoning of Powell resigning and speaking out several times. The way the war on Iraq was perceived in the beginning was a war of defense, where most of the conservatives believed Saddam was linked to Al-Quaida, the plutonium deal in Africa, so on and so forth. Today, on 2007, you can see a mounting amount of historians, experts, intelligence, fraudulent dealings in the current administration in regards of the handling of intelligence, and, Intelligence that actually warned the Administration not to take such role on going into war. To not derail out of topic, that’s just to give an idea of how the perception of the war has been from the beginning to today where more information has risen as to real FACTS for been in the war. Many thought it was a right war to go into, but now realize after further analysis that it no longer is such a moral war after all.
Now, what to do in the current country of Iraq??. Iraq is experiencing worst happenings then under the rule of Saddam, and when people in Iraq start saying that, it’s pretty sad. What to do in Iraq Now?!?! Well that’s a whole different topic and subject to get into. It is very different to discuss about what this war was about, to what we are fighting now. We are in the midst of a civil war created by the war itself, the orientation and track to take has become so difficult, and to my opinion, either road that the US takes, would be a hard one.
My major is international Relations, so I’m studying a whole bunch spectrums on the subject and others a whole, the effects of every little word spoken etc etc…
In diplomacy, one has to be very careful, because the consequences can lead to thousands of deaths… and calling government Axis of Evil, or anyone, an EVIL, can be a terrible mistake, especially when you need them in the future ( Look at today’s news US trying to talk with Iran and Syria ). Diplomacy can do wonderful things, even when dealing with the enemy, example can lead to wonderful things. 🙂
Now going into the topic of politics and religion, it is sad to see leaders to use Religion for political advantage for their own-self, for wrongful doings and purposes ( I should quote my Bishop on that on the class while studying Pres. Wooldfruf )
I can think of few better examples of “compulsion” than invading a country and compelling its tribal people to establish a form of government in which they have no background, history, or philosophy.
Mike,
I would be quite comfortable to be found before the judgment bar confronted with the accusation that I supported forcing oppressors to provide freedom to their people.
Seriously, how is this any different from the argument that the Blacks were better off as slaves because they were an inferior race and couldn’t handle freedom? Every man deserves to be free. We have a chance now in Iraq to make a difference in this regard, let’s stick with it and give them the freedom and peace they deserve.
I think it’s sad that many view the act of removing tyrants worse than the acts of the tyrants themselves. It’s as if we’re ok with the status quo because it’s not affecting us personally and to fix it would require us getting our hands dirty.
Tyranny is bad. There are lots of bad people in power around the world. If the Iraq war had been sold as “let’s get rid of Saddam so we can free the Iraqi people,” I would be less upset. But it wasn’t sold that way — it was sold with manufactured evidence of WMDs and connections to al-Quaeda.
Now that we’re there, all Bush can repeat is “the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.” Honestly, I’m not so sure about that. Nearly 100,000 people are dead, possibly more. The violence is getting worse. Baghdad is a war zone. Death squads are killing people by the dozens every week. Over a million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria and Jordan. All the best and brightest people in the country have left. The region is hopelessly destabilized. Saddam was bad, but this is worse.
The Iraqis are not an “inferior race.” But liberal democracy is not something you can impose upon people; it has to be adopted by them. It is quite clear that the Iraqi people are not willing to adopt it. The elections that have been held thus far have given power to tribal clans. The elected government is virtually powerless — elected representatives don’t run the country, the militias do. Our cherished ideas of civil liberties and separation of church and state aren’t even comprehended there, let alone shared.
I think it’s sad that (a rapidly diminishing minority of) Americans still argue that Iraq was a good idea. The Bush administration and FAUX News can put lipstick on a pig, but more and more people are starting to see that it’s just a pig.
Oh, I also failed to mention that the Iranians now believe that they are the next targets for invasion, and are developing nuclear weapons because they believe that is the only way to protect themselves.
“Removing tyrants” sounds noble, until one begins to count the costs involved.
Usually it is a good idea to empower people to get rid of their own tyrants instead of blowing up 655,000 liberated people in the process.
If we truly cared about Iraqi freedom, we would have never supported the tyrant Saddam in his many atrocities in the first place. We would have provided the necessary arms to the Shiites when they rose up in rebellion against Saddam after Gulf War I instead of refusing them and hovering overhead while watching their slaughter.
A big clue of what exactly we are doing over there has to do with what we are seeing in their Hydrocarbon Act. That is the one that the Bush administration is insisting they take care of sooner than later. It is touted as a tool to evenly and fairly distribute oil revenue wealth among the different segments of the country, but actually has nothing to do with that. The majority of the bill has to do with the privatization of the oil industry, allowing it to be open to foreign domination for the most part. Ask yourself why in this society that has descended into sheer chaos, are we so concerned with what our oil companies will make out of it?
By the way Mike,
Whether Iran is making nuclear weapons or not, we have no evidence that they are doing nothing more than what they are saying they are doing. The scare tactic of the mushroom cloud here is deja vu all over again for what we were spoon fed in the run up to Iraq. The whole nation is starting to fall for it again along with the gullible and complicit media.
#43 and #44 are part of one comment. Curse our software!!!!!!
Mike and Curtis, I personally am not willing to get into another re-hash of all of the points related to the Iraq war. Just a quick point that I think needs addressing.
I really take exception with the claim that the Iraq war is/was immoral or unrighteous. There is no evidence from the talks from any of the Brethren that we are being warned against this “immoral” intervention. We are warned all of the time by the Brethren against immorality – p-rnography, breaking the commandments, and on and on. Yet modern-day prophets, seers and revelators have remained silent — and in my opinion have actually supported if you read the April 2003 talk — the Iraq invasion.
I have said it before and I will repeat it: if President Hinckley were even to hint that he saw the Iraq war as immoral, I would join you in condemning it. I do not relish war. But it has not happened.
Further, Mike, I think there is a contradiction between your earlier characterization of the Iraq war as “Wilsonian” and your claim that it is immoral and unrighteous. Wilsonian foreign policy — and indeed all morality-based foreign policy even including Jimmy Carter’s disastrous human rights policy — is based on morality. Whether or not it is effective is another issue, but intentions count enormously with the Lord. If we look at our personal actions, if we act in a way that we believe to be moral — even if it is not effective — we are going down the right path.
And I would agree with you that the best way to describe the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq is indeed “Wilsonian.” It is a stark contrast of the Realpolitik of Nixon/Kissinger. It is certainly not “right-wing.” Indeed the far right wing of the Republican party — the Pat Buchanans, etc — oppose the Iraq invasion precisely because they reject morality-based foreign policy.
Personally, I have been in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein on human rights grounds since the 1980s. I favored the first Gulf war and thought we should have gotten rid of him then. I favored our invasion of Panama and the overthrow of Noriega on human rights grounds. I favored the Serbia intervention and the prosecution of Milosevic on human rights grounds. I favored overthrowing the Taliban on human rights grounds. And I favor our continued involvement in Iraq primarily on human rights grounds. I could not live with myself if I favored a pullout of U.S. troops that brought Iranian and Saudi intervention and caused an even greater war in the Middle East. My conscience tells me such a policy is simply wrong and immoral.
So, if you want to argue the Iraq war has been ineffectual and poorly executed, I think you are in a strong position. I don’t accept — nor will I ever accept — the idea that it is immoral and unrighteous.
Please don’t come back at me quoting death statistics. I have heard them all, and indeed we hear them every day in the mainstream media. Yes, U.S. troops have caused some deaths, but the vast majority have been caused by the very forces of darkness and tyranny I oppose. By quoting death statistics, you are only bolstering my case. Certainly an al Qaeda or radical Shiite or radical Sunni-led government in Iraq would cause many more deaths than the current situation.
I want to make it clear that I don’t dispute your right to go around saying the Iraq war is immoral. Clearly that is the position of many people and on the Bloggernacle and in many other sectors in society. I probably cannot convince you it is moral, and I don’t expect you to agree.
But I hope I can convince you that I personally would never support a policy I thought was immoral. So I hope you will not question my motives and/or my intentions. I have given this issue a lot of thought and I am simply supporting the position I feel is morally right. I feel comfortable about being judged by the Lord on that position.
“I’d expect some clear guidance from the leadership of the church if it was so clear cut as you make it seem.”
Aluwid, I’m not sure that expectation is reasonable.
The following is from Robert E. Wells, “Peace,†Ensign, May 1991:
I would like to share an incident which took place during the Vietnam War. There were some who were convinced that the United States was engaged in a noble and justifiable war. However, public opinion was changing, and there was opposition which argued that the U.S. should pull out of Vietnam.
President Harold B. Lee was the President of the Church at the time. While at an area conference in another country he was interviewed by reporters from the international news services. One reporter asked President Lee, “What is your church’s position on the Vietnam War?†Some recognized the question as a trap—one which could not be answered without a very real risk of being misunderstood or misinterpreted. If the prophet answered, “We are against the war,†the international media could state, “How strange—a religious leader who is against the position of the country he is obliged to sustain in his own church’s articles of faith.†On the other hand, if President Lee answered, “We are in favor of the war,†the media could question, “How strange—a religious leader in favor of war?†Either way, the answer could result in serious problems regarding public opinion both inside and outside the Church.
President Lee, with great inspiration and wisdom, answered as would a man who knows the Savior: “We, together with the whole Christian world, abhor war. But the Savior said, ‘In me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation.’ †(John 16:33.) And then the prophet quoted that other comforting scripture from John: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.†(John 14:27.) President Lee then explained: “The Savior was not talking about the peace that can be achieved between nations, by military force or by negotiation in the halls of parliaments. Rather, he was speaking of the peace we can each have in our own lives when we live the commandments and come unto Christ with broken hearts and contrite spirits.†(See Ensign, Nov. 1982, p. 70.)
Perhaps is was the better part of valor for President Lee to demur, when asked to state the church’s position on the war. However, he became president of the church only late in 1972, long after the change in public opinion was well underway.
I thought at the time that President Hinckley’s 2003 address tried to do the same thing with a little less success. It was the only time in many years of watching and admiring his discourses that I thought he sounded a little bit confused. It seemed like he felt he ought to address the issue, but wasn’t quite sure the best way to do it, hence all the ambiguity. I remember wishing that he hadn’t said anything.
I remember thinking that to the extent President Hinckley’s personal feelings could be discerned, our country’s policies had his tacit support. I don’t think that this is just because at the time I supported those policies also, despite the beginnings of serious reservations. The misbegotten Shock and Awe campaign was underway and only days later the insufficient number of troops stood by while looters had free reign of Baghdad. A few months later it would become clear that Hans Blix had been telling the truth all along.
Even so, the majority of Iraqis gave us the benefit of the doubt for far longer than we deserved it. Paul Bremer came over and, helped by legions of totally inexperienced, but politically connected flunkies proceeded to make just about every worst decision possible, undermining the military and experienced diplomats at every turn. President Bush’s interventions were rare and desultory.
I still think that the invasion was justified given UN resolutions and the information we had at the time, however incorrect it turned out to be, and that even if it was a bad idea, (at the time, although not opposing the invasion, I argued for doing so only if Afghanistan was not neglected, which of course, it was) with competent leadership a very different outcome was imaginable.
All of that said, I can’t argue with anything Mike Parker says in comment 39.
Mike,
The War should be considered in two stages. The first was the invasion itself which was a standard military operation. It was an absolute success, Saddam’s government was overthrown with little resistance and the words “Mission Accomplished” described the outcome. That is the portion of the War that was justified due to the threat that Saddam’s government provided, the evidence that he had a WMD program, etc. We could have left immediately and it would have gone down in the history books as a great military success. It would also have left Iraq in chaos and as such would have been unwise and unjust.
The second stage is where we are now. We decided to stay and build up the country just as we did in Germany and Japan following World War II. The WMDs are out the window as justification so stop bringing them into the picture. There are now two central reasons for our presence there: 1. National Security – Whether or not al-Qaeda was present prior to the invasion they are there today. It’s in the best interests of the US to leave Iraq as a free democratic country, and to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing a foothold there 2. Humanitarian Reasons – The Iraqi government is depending on us for stability and support. We are there building their infrastructure, protecting their people, etc. If we get our way the people will be better off, if we lose they will see more death and oppression.
We imposed liberal democracy on the freed slaves. Perhaps it was not the wisest way to do it, maybe we should have waited for them to revolt themselves. But I believe it was the right thing to do, as I believe giving the Iraqis a chance at democracy is also the right thing.
BTW, I’d recommend you lay off the name-calling. Saying things such as “Faux News” degrades your argument and intellect. Generally speaking I stop reading as soon as I see such ridiculous comments (“Defeatocrats” instead of Democrats for an example from the other side of the aisle), I’m guessing I’m not the only one that uses such language as a filter to determine if someone’s opinion is worth spending time reading about or not.
Curtis,
Your number of deaths is off, take a look at Mike’s posts, they are more likely to be accurate. Either way attributing the actions of our enemy to ourselves doesn’t make sense. It’s like blaming the US for the six million Jews that died during World War II. We’re fighting the bad guys here folks. If our enemies laid down their weapons today then Iraq would be in freedom and peace tomorrow. If we lay down our weapons today then tomorrow will bring more death and oppression to Iraq. I don’t understand how you spin that into us being the immoral or unjust ones.
Regarding your statement of Gulf War I. I agree with you, we should have finished the job then. But our past failures do not justify future ones. Let’s get it right this time.
Bill,
My point is that modern day wars such as Vietnam and Iraq are not going to be clear cut “Support it or you are immoral” or vice versa. Both good or bad could come from either action and in my opinion the morality of ones stance all comes down to what your underlying motivation is. I believe that is the reason for the lack of direct statements by Church authorities. Instead they focus on our underlying motivations that influence our stances. But again, if a war was expressly unjust or immoral and there was no way that a righteous priesthood holder should support it then I would expect to get that direction from the Prophet.
Aluwid,
I fall into the category of people who consider this war to be immoral, unrighteous and illegal from the beginning. I was against this war before it was even conceived in Cheney’s brain. I was opposed to the murderous sanctions imposed by the UN which ended up in taking the lives of a million Iraqis, at least half of which were little children. Scott Ritter and Hans Von Sponek knew what we were doing to that nation and quit their positions in protest. I knew that the weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t be found as Ritter plainly stated, and as our own National Intelligence Estimate stated.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was Washington’s boy until he started policies that we really disliked such as transferring their currency into other forms away from the US dollar. We supported him in all of his atrocities up until then, and then after the first Gulf War we supported him again in massacring the Shiites in their rebellion.
The numbers of deaths given by Mike are from the IraqBodyCount.org site. They only count deaths reported in two english media sources and ignore all else. The numbers of deaths I quote are from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Study which interviewed 12,000 people in Iraq and took a clean cross section of their population. Their method is the gold standard for estimating deaths in war time. It is only an estimate, but their statistical analysis gives us 95.5% confidence that the true number falls inbetween 400,000 and 800,000 (or somewhere in that ballpark… I can’t remember the exact numbers). Noone has refuted their methodology. The IBC website has brought up a numbr of issues with the numbers, but offers no real substantive refutation of the methodology which is solid.
As for Geoff’s assertion that we need to be there to stop the carnage… the study showed that the US military was responsible for an estimated 200,000 deaths, 55,000 due to non-violent deaths in excess of what would be expected had we not invaded and the rest due to other violent deaths.
The majority of those violent deaths are now due to sectarian strife and not due to Al Queda. If we leave Iraq all agree that there will probably be a spike in carnage. There is also a strong indication that Al Queda will be extinguished from Iraq. Even Sunni insurgents are fighting against them. Noone likes people who blow up your own people. After the civil war is settled (which is already under way) we’ll see what happens. Vietnam turned out alright after we left in spite of the civil strife. They are now our trade partners. Perhaps the same will become of Iraq. In any case, we have to obey the democratic voice of the people. 144 Parlianmetarians have signed a letter demanding a withdrawal of US forces… a clear majority of the total of 275. If they want us out, it is the true test of how much we really desire the freedom of the Iraqi people. I doubt we will obey.
The key issue is that we are not over there to protect human life or freedom right now. That’s what we are led to believe. However, the truth is that we are over there to support a government that is friendly to the US so that we can maintain control of their great oil resources. The wealth from the oil is secondary. It is the control of oil that matters to us. That is why we are pushing so hard for the Hydrocarbon Act to be passed. It will open the way for privatization of the Iraqi oil industry so that the control rests with the Chevrons and Exxons of the world without even being required to hire Iraqis to work at their sites! It’s a bad law for Iraq and it reveals our policy for what it truly is.
Geoff:
I don’t believe the president of the Church needs to declare a war immoral for it to be so. I have come to conclusion of my own free will. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, of course.
I am a libertarian, and do not believe it is our job to police the world. So I disagree with you about American military adventures in Serbia, Panama, etc. These were regional problems that would have been best solved by regional players. Instead they cost American lives and American dollars and returned nothing to America in the way of protection or freedom.
Aluwid:
I was opposed to the war before it began, and remain so. So I was against “stage 1” and remain against “stage 2.” Just because we won in “stage 1” does not mean it was the right thing to do.
Our presence there is a destabilizing influence. We could engage Iraq’s neighbors to get them to help the situation, but we’ve made so many enemies in that region that most countries (especially Iran and Syria) are perfectly content to let us twist in the wind. We created the mess, and now there are no good ways out, only bad and less-bad ones. I’m for partitioning the country and allowing its portions to be absorbed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and an independent Kurdish state; that is the quickest way out with the least lives to be lost.
I reject your comparison of African slaves freed in the U.S. civil war to the Iraq situation. The two are not even remotely analogous.
I’m sorry you took offense at my little jab at FOX News. It’s just hard to take them seriously when they use the motto “fair and balanced” but operate as the de facto propaganda ministry for the Bush White House.
Geoff B. – Yes, U.S. troops have caused some deaths
Care to assign a number to “some”? How many deaths are you comfortable with?
If the ratio of “their deaths” vs. “our deaths” is 5 to 1, is that OK? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? When does it become a slaughter? When does it become unacceptable?
As far as the US not being a destructive force in Iraq, perhaps many of you have forgetten the not isolated type of violence we brought to Fallujah. Here is a reminder from a 16 year old Fallujah resident:
Oops, here’s the link for that:
http://gorillasguides.com/2007/05/24/there-was-a-funeral-in-fallujah-today/
The nearsightedness continues.
The true cost of Iraq isn’t just people dead in Iraq.
It’s the cost of ever singly other foreign policy concern that we are currently unable to address because of this quagmire of US blood, treasure, and credibility.
Geoff, I have to take issue with something you said:
“I have come to the conclusion that there simply are times when it is necessary to go to war to stop even greater bloodshed. Just imagine if we had overthrown Hitler in 1933 or Stalin in the 1920s or Mao in 1948 — imagine how many millions of our brothers and sisters we could have saved.”
As noble as these intentions are, you’re talking crazy talk.
At the cessation of hostilities, in WWII Germany, the Soviet Red army was the single largest conventional ground force in Europe. The Red Army had just finished fighting the German army almost singlehandedly. Remember, the US was a latecomer. Stalin had already halted Hitler on the Ukrainian steppe by the time the US got involved. If we had never sent a single GI over, it likely would have ended in a brutal draw between to ruthless dictators.
And you’re suggesting that the US should have just kept pressing on and thrown ourselves against that monstrosity? You’re not thinking clearly.
We would not have prevailed. Period.
The only thing keeping Russia from crossing the river and occupying all Germany while smashing US forces, was the atom bomb. I personally think that this was the primary reason that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were incinerated – it wasn’t so much a warning to the Japanese as it was a shot across Stalin’s bow. US military and political leaders knew we didn’t have the power to stop the Red Army, even with the full US military presence in Europe at that time. The A-bomb was our trump card.
Your millions of lives saved is a fantasy. You would have been looking at millions more American casualties, untold Russian casualties. Even more civilian holocaust as two massive and savage armies ripped at each other across the breadth of Eastern and possible Western Europe. And the likely outcome would have been either a US loss, or the wholesale practice of atom bombing Russian population centers. You think the US wouldn’t have done it? Remember Dresden?
WWII might damn well have been the end of the world, had we done what you suggest and gone after Stalin.
Has it ever occurred to you that there are far worse things than tyranny of a mad dictator? You can’t even imagine the hell you’re calling for. I know I can’t.
As for Mao… The very thought that it was even feasible to do what you are suggesting is highly questionable. But getting there would have resulted in an insurgency that tops everything we’ve seen in Iraq. China was a brutal and savage society at that time. You’re suggested liberation programs would have resulted in famine, disease, starvation, and violence that dwarfs anything Chairman Mao carried out during the rest of his accursed rule.
There’s a scene in the movie “Kundun” where the Dali Lama has a dream in which he sees an old Chinese general speaking of his time during the struggle against the Japanese invaders:
“I was walking along a road and I saw a woman at the side bent over holding the body of a dead infant. The infant was hers and had died the night before. She was making ready to cook it and eat it. THAT was what life in China was like, before Chairman Mao!”
Geoff, I sympathize with the urge to right the world’s wrongs. But you people are going about it completely wrong. It takes more to set the world right than a few good men with sufficient firepower. You are like the heroes in those stereotypical cop movies. They put the pedal to the medal and fire off high powered handguns. They drive their cars on the sidewalks, cause car accidents, discharge their weapons indiscriminently and generally “Kick-A.” All in the name of getting that evil and insufferably smug drug lord either dead or jailed.
I once saw Mel Gibson and Danny Glover drive their car through an entire cubicled floor of an office building.
You ever once stop to think, if that were to happen in reality, how many people would be maimed, how many businesses ruined, how many families torn apart, how many people would suffer from a single one of those cop movie car chases? Or are you too busy feeling all macho about how the bad guy got his comeuppance?
Because, like it or not Geoff, this is exactly the sort of thinking Bush is engaging in – foreign policy on the “Lethal Weapon” model. This is exactly the kind of idealistic, ignorant, reckless, thoughtless kind of policy that the Neoconservatives have been pushing for the last decade. And Americans ate it up. The only reason America is turning on Bush now is because he’s losing. He didn’t kick tail and take names EFFECTIVELY enough. If he’d simply been better at it, the guy would be freaking hero. Just like Dirty Harry.
But the Neoconservative agenda isn’t stupid just because Bush is handling it stupidly. It’s stupid because it’s stupid.
Mel Gibson’s cop in Lethal Weapon III ISN’T any sort of hero. The guy is a danger to society. More of a danger to society, in fact, than the criminals he chases.
Until Americans wise up to that and stop conducting foreign policy like a hyped-up 13 year old, we are going to find ourselves revisiting these scenes again, and again, and again….
Time for the Neoconservatives, and Americans generally, to grow up.
I have to agree with Mike and Curtis. The Iraqi people don’t comprehend democracy or freedom and given the choice would rather live under a tyrant. They even voted for Saddam 100% so clearly they wanted him as their dictator. I’m sure Iraqis prefer not to have freedom of the press or freedom to assemble. Those foolish Iraqis who didn’t understand this under Saddam’s rule fortunately were put to death so that the stable prison state could flourish under Saddam’s sometimes gentle, sometimes fatal hand.
When President Bush originally stated his reasons for the war, freeing the Iraqi people was like third or fourth on the list (back in 1992) so I can understand why Mike didn’t know that was one of the “stated” reasons for our initial foray into Iraq. I mean, seriously who can listen that far into a state of the union or other speech given by the president.
I know I would rather be a serf under a feudal system or live as an Iraqi in fear of offending a Bathist than be dead and we should have respected that zeal for life. Some things aren’t worth fighting for and freedom may be one of those things. Course democracy isn’t freedom, it is only the illusion of freedom. Just because the Iraqi people are now free to vote for whoever they want to represent them doesn’t mean they’re free. When other factions are trying to kill your faction or US troops its the United States fault for not realizing that these people won’t live in peace unless someone takes away their freedom; I mean until someone gives them the freedom to live under a dictator.
Thanks for pointing out that this war is so clearly wrong, I get confused sometimes.
Actually, the Iraqis, as a whole, are less free today than they were under Saddam. Anyone who actually pays attention to the human stories from Iraq should have noticed that by now.
Interestingly enough there are two articles appearing today that underscore our two reasons for remaining in Iraq to stabilize the new government:
1. National Security Reasons: “Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri Urges Iraqis to Take Jihad to Other Middle Eastern Countries”
– http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275714,00.html
Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine are next on the list after Iraq.
2. Humanitarian Reasons: “Strife Foreseen in Iraq Exit, but Experts Split on Degree”
– http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html?ex=1337918400&en=57355612136d45c0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Key takeaway:
“The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government.”
Of course they do Aluwid. They know what side their bread is buttered on.
But frankly, this is no longer just about Iraq. We’ve got other things to worry about. It is getting to the point where, bloodbath or not, we have to abandon the Iraqis. America has a responsibility to the entire globe, not just Iraq. But Iraq is crippling our ability to take care of the rest of the globe.
The wiser course now would be to give up Iraq for a lost cause, and re-consolidate our global position. As for the likely genocide and civil war…
Well, that’s a humiliation and a shame the Americans are just going to have to live with. Maybe they’ll think twice about chest-thumping over macho Tom Clancy style adventures in the future.
Alluwid,
The same article you quote mentions the majority of the Iraqi Parliament are for a US military pullout. This is consistent with the many polls that come out of Iraq, showing that the majority of Iraqis favor a withdrawal of the US military and the very intersting fact that 60% of those polled support violent attacks against US troops. What are we doing over there again? Fighting against 60% of the population?
Re. Seth R. #53:
AMEN.
“The key issue is that we are not over there to protect human life or freedom right now.”
Curtis, you might not be over there to protect human life or freedom right now, but we are. And you can’t tell us otherwise.
Seth, #53 and Mike #59, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I said Stalin in the 1920s, not Stalin post WWII. The Bolsheviks were relatively weak in the early 1920s and could have easily been overthrown. In fact, an allied effort against the Bolsheviks in 1919 — supported primarily by Churchill with very tepid U.S. support — came very close to overthrowing Lenin and Co. 10,000 additional American troops could have tipped the balance and saved the lives of millions killed by Stalin in the purges of the 1920s and 1930s. Churchill, who saw the Bolsheviks as the murderers and thugs they were, was calling for just such a policy and was of course over-ruled within the British govt.
Mao in 1948 was also very close to being destroyed by the Nationalists. Again, an intervention at the right time — urged by McArthur and others — could have tipped the balance. Mao ended up killing tens of millions.
Seth, I would like to appeal to your Christian sensibilities to avoid phrases such as “crazy talk” and “you’re not thinking clearly.” First of all, you have completely misrepresented what I said — again, I said 1920s, not 1940s. Secondly, such rhetoric doesn’t further any kind of calm, reasoned discussion. Thanks.
The wiser course now would be to give up Iraq for a lost cause
That might be a reasonable course of action, but it hardly seems repentant enough.
How ’bout we turn Bush and Cheney over to the World Court at The Hague, and then promise never to pull this kind of stunt ever again?
I think that’s overdoing it Mark. It also further undermines US credibility at a time when US influence is profoundly needed throughout the globe.
Geoff, setting Way-Back machine to 1920 doesn’t do us much good either. You’re essentially talking about dropping us into the tail end of the apocalyptic Russian Civil War in which more Russians lost their lives than the entirety of World War I.
As for supporting Chinese Nationalists against Mao… Fair enough. I actually agree that we should have been more serious about backing our horse – Chiang Kai Shek – than we were. We allied with him and should have backed him properly.
But that basically substitutes one dictator for another. Chiang only looks better than Mao in hindsight. Wonderful thing, that.
As for the rhetoric. I’ll try and tune it down a notch. I’ll concede it’s a bit heated for me.
Curtis,
From the article: “A bare majority of Iraq’s 275-member Parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job.”
Note the final sentence. No one is planning on planting 150,000+ American troops in Iraq forever. We just want them there until the job is done. President Bush has been saying for years that as they ramp up, we’ll ramp down.
Seth,
I disagree with your assessment and believe that our abandonment of Iraq would greatly worsen our global position as it would make clear to the world that we lack the stamina to follow through on our missions and obligations. But I suspect that this is a point that we will remain in disagreement about despite further conversation so I’ll leave it at that.
It also further undermines US credibility
Is that even possible?
Aluwid, I don’t think there’s anything left to hide on that point. The rest of the world is already well aware that we haven’t the stamina for this conflict. It’s only Bush who hasn’t figured it out yet. The pullout from Iraq could be mitigated by an increased commitment to Afghanistan – a situation we can still actually salvage – provided we aren’t quagmired in Iraq.
Of course we’re going to take a credibility hit by pulling out. I never promised you a rose garden. Americans screwed up royally here, and there are obviously going to be some consequences for that.
Mark N.
Oh yes. It’s is soo very possible.
Aluwid,
Nonetheless, we plan on staying over there forever with some number of troops as is evidenced by the permanent bases we are building. Doesn’t seem like that’s what the bare majority are asking for to me.
Mark,
Turning Bush and Cheney over to the Hague is exactly what we should do. At the same time though, most of our other living past presidents have also committed crimes worthy of the Hague.
That wouldn’t be quite enough though. We’d also have to return all of the money we’ve stolen.
Eric,
That’s just ignoring the facts my friend. The only freedom we are giving them is freedom from the burden of living.
53 was a great post, thanks Seth.
There is only one way to win in the current conflict. President Hinkley’s message delivers the counsel we must follow in order to be victorious. Most of the peripheral issues being argued here would be superfluous, if we were simply united in resolve to continue faithfully in our commitments, following the Prophet, and serving the living God.
Interesting to me, it seems obvious that President Hinckley was trying to send this vital message, but the Saints of the Church are continually distracted by these political interests, running after pursuits that will never win peace or establish freedom in the hearts of men.
Jim,
Perhaps you could elaborate how, exactly “the Saints of the Church” are “continually distracted” by topics like the war in Iraq.
This story appears relevant to this discussion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html?ei=5090&en=357fc787c131360c&ex=1337918400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem would increase.
So, tell me again how it is that helping prevent murder and mayhem is immoral?
Pardon me if I don’t see it that way.
Geoff,
If “A” then “B.”
That’s the logical construct the article is positing (I happen to agree with it).
You are taking that construct and trying to use as proof that:
If NOT “A” then NOT “B”
Logically, it just doesn’t work Geoff.
Let’s assume that if the US pulls out of Iraq (which isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, by the way) there will be a bloodbath.
How exactly does that prove that there WON’T be a bloodbath if we stay?
Besides, you’re trying to isolate the Iraq problem from all the other US concerns when you’re setting up your moral equations here. The US has obligations to a lot of people and not just the Iraqis.
I’m saying that, short of a lot of unlikely miracles, Iraq is already a lost cause. It will collapse in a bloodbath sooner or later. Preventing that is no longer even a realistic possibility.
We can no longer do anything for the Iraqis except delay the inevitable. Nice as that is, we’ve got Afghanistan, and the rest of world security to worry about. We can’t afford to have our world influence hamstrung over Iraq any longer. Time to cut and run. And I don’t care if you think that’s negative thinking. It is defeatist and negative. But it also happens to be the only rational response to the situation at this point.
This will free up resources for problems we actually have a chance of solving – like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an unseen casualty of Iraq. The Iraqi quagmire has prevented us from fully addressing Afghan needs. That’s just one example. I’ve already mentioned others.
But the clock is ticking. These other diplomatic, military and humanitarian concerns will not remain solvable forever.
The US needs to abandon the Iraqis to their fate and tend to the other children. This is already much bigger than Iraq. You need to stop confining your analysis to Iraq’s borders and realize that we are on the verge of irrevocably ruining the entire American e.m.p.i.r.e. Iraq is small potatoes compared to that.
It’s amazing how we’re soooooo willing to learn from history, unless, of course, it challenges our own social ideology.
We pulled out of Vietnam. There was a bloodbath.
Seth R, we know there will be a bloodbath if we leave. There is a chance it will not be a bloodbath if we stay. There is a chance the country can be stabilized and that the Iraqis can begin defending themselves and especially their borders from Iran and Syria. That chance may be 10 percent (typical Democratic party talking points) or 70 percent (my personal opinion — if we were willing to tough it out for a few more years). I’d still take a 10 percent chance of success against a 100 percent chance of bloodbath.
But that’s just me.
I wonder if some people would change their opinions if we were talking about Darfur instead of Iraq. Just forget about “Bush lied” and all of the leftist — and far-right Pat Buchanan — talking points: what will save more lives? That is my personal moral calculation for intervention, and I feel very comfortable that it is moral and righteous.
No Geoff,
Until China and Russia are willing to support it, there isn’t much we can do about Darfur and I will support no such military intervention in Sudan until we have that support. I may be wrong, but I’m not inconsistent.
And I do not think a 10% chance is worth it. You are still looking at Iraq in an isolation chamber. All you are asking is what is good for Iraq or what is bad for Iraq.
That question is relevant, but it’s only a small part of the equation here. This is much, much bigger than Iraqi children in body-bags.
Jack,
Yup Vietnam was a bloodbath. But you know, somehow it wasn’t the end of the world. The world moved on. If I’d been king that day, I would still have pulled out of Vietnam, even with 20/20 hindsight.
The risks associated with a continued US presence in Iraq outweigh any benefits the Iraqis may gain from it.
Yes, I’m being cold-hearted and ruthless. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. There are times and places where a bit of ruthlessness in action is appropriate. Heart surgeons, for instance are cold, detached and ruthless in their actions. They can’t suffer every cut inflicted upon their patient as if it where their own pain. If they did, they’d likely kill the patient. Much good mushy sentiment does them.
The Neocons have had six years of ruling by mushy sentiment, weepy sentimentality, inflammatory prejudice, gut reactions, and overwhelming fear.
All those who think this approach has been productive and useful, say “aye.”
Yes, I’m being cold-hearted. But in the end, I think you’ll find my approach far more compassionate than that of the sentimentalists who can’t see our world situation for what it really is and would condemn entire nations to the hell of warfare just to save a few starving puppies next door.
Time for a bit of perspective here.
All,
Let’s not forget the bloodbath we brought to Iraq in the first place. According the most conservative numbers there are an excess of 70,000 people dead in Iraq above the baseline under Saddam since we’ve been there. Other estimates have the numbers between 400,000 to 800,000. We brought the blood bath to Iraq. Now we need to leave in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi people. As has been mentioned here, a majority of Iraqi politicians want us out after some sort of stabilization has taken place. In recent polls, most Iraqis want us out within a year. The same polls show 60% of Iraqis support attacks on US troops! We really need to get out of there.
One of the most troubling trends I see though is the tendency of the American people to forget and fall for the same line again with Iran. If we end up in a military conflict with Iran things will get ugly pretty fast. Seth is right about us needing to take a hard look at ourselves.
I’ve really enjoyed the exchanges going on here, especially the political and historical comments, but it seems that very few commentators have lately said anything about what Pres. Hinckley said in his message. Just so the whole thing doesn’t go totally off-track, let me cite a passage, and you guys give me a comment or two:
Hinckley: “No son or daughter of our Heavenly Father can afford to partake of things that will weaken the mind, the body, or the eternal spirit… You cannot be involved in immoral activity. You cannot do these things and be valiant as warriors in the cause of the Lord in the great, everlasting contest that goes on for the souls of our Father’s children.”
Hinckley warns us against drugs, alcohol, and por-nography. What about addiction to war, specifically the illegal war and immoral occupation of Iraq? Doesn’t this weaken our minds to the point that we lose sense of what is morally right and wrong?
Take for example the Marines who recently slaughtered 24 innocent civilians at Haditha. If these Marines were not so addicted to war, and thus weakened by it, wouldn’t they question orders to kill civilians just like any normal human being would question a command to kill innocent people?
Miguel,
The same thing happens to a lot of soldiers. From what I’ve read of the records of soldiers in World War II, such as the 101st airborne and others, they eventually came to exhibit the same brutality. Some handled it better than others. The brutality spread across the board with the soldiers. “Bad” soldiers would exhibit these behaviors, as would highly decorated and admired soldiers.
The celebrated men of the 101st Airborne Division (Easy Company from “Band of Brothers”) actually reported a lot of dehumanization that occurred in their ranks during World War II. One instance recounts how one of Easy’s snipers shot a German soldier in the gut when he was foolish enough to wander into the open. The GIs nearby took turns looking through the binoculars and laughing about the surprised look on the dying man’s face.
What the folks back home don’t get is that, while our soldiers may be many things, they are essentially trained killers. Mainstreet America likes to forget about that and whitewash them, pin medals on their chests, and call them heroes.
I’m not suggesting they aren’t heroes. But they are also killers. It’s what they are meant for. And it’s pretty hard to get around that central fact of their existence.
Don’t forget Mai Lai and all of the other Mai Lais that never made it into public light.
I read that article carefully last night and it is more a discussion of the war between good and evil than us and Iraq.
Miguel,
No one here is going to argue that the addiction to war is not immoral but you seem to be ignoring all the posts wondering how it could be considered immoral for a nation to sacrifice it’s wealth and the lives of it’s soldiers in defense of another people. Maybe it’s just me but the logic just isn’t there.
We have tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq. It’s inevitable that you will have some bad apples among so many, and given the chaos and stress of war horrible things will happen. But be careful stating anything beyond that. Trying to use such incidents as a representation of the character of the military is just as unfair as trying to argue that what happened in Mountain Meadows was an accurate representation of the Mormon faith and people.
I agree annegb. The article really had almost nothing to do with Iraq.
We bloggers just enjoy contention, that’s all.
The only reason I pointed out the Haditha massacre is because it’s the one that’s lately in the news. What’s never mentioned in the mainstream media is that our troops, some 180,000 of them are currently engaged in an illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign country.
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein because he was alleged to threaten the US with WMDs is also immoral simply because it is based on lies. The same propaganda machine used to lie us to war against Iraq is now on hyperdrive in the looming war with Iran.
Pres. Hinckley’s warning against substance abuse pales in comparison with our nation’s addiction to war. War destroys all of us, even though we are not in the battlefield. Just look at our economy, it’s already bearing the brunt of a protracted war. We’re already in a recession, and the dollar is on the verge of a free fall, what with the oil-producing countries switching to euros and other currencies, while federal bank overprints paper money. Many countries around the world are gloating at the fact that Iraq quagmire, instead of strengthening our grip in the Middle East, has actually demolished whatever’s left of our influence there.
War destroys families of those military troops engaged in it. How many soldier has gone home after repeated deployments to see that his/her spouse has left or took the children away. Or what about soldiers who left civilian jobs and found that they couldn’t return to them later?
Honestly, I feel disturbed that Pres. Hinckley uses the metaphor of war to deliver a gospel message. He seems to be saying that it’s not OK to do drugs or alcohol, but OK to be drunk with war. In our day and age, war is a sign of abject failure. War is Hell, and that is an understatement. The fruits of war is destruction even for those who win it. That is why those who understand the nature of war like Sun Tzu advocate that it be avoided at all costs. Even Jesus warned about counting costs when engaging in war.
As Seth R pointed out, we constantly train killers and make sure their consciences don’t get in the way of their training. We destroy the human in them so that they can go on the business of destroying other human beings with very little glitch. That’s the price we pay for being too enthusiastic about waging war. War, like charity, begins at home.
Miguel, I think you’re missing the point of President Hinckley’s talk. He isn’t so much saying war is a good paradigm as he is saying we are in a war whether we like it or not. We didn’t chose to be at war but the adversary is fighting a spiritual battle for the souls of men. This spiritual war is much more important than any temporal/temporary physical war.
You talk about war being hell as if there is no afterlife. Death is merely a transition, not a transition to take lightly but reading the scriptures it appears that God takes the evil that men do and turns it to good. Maybe war provides some of the ultimate tests to see how young men will react to the most difficult circumstances. Maybe this life is a test and war provides some useful spiritual tool in the plan of salvation.
And Seth, I don’t know where you get some of your history. Stalin was responsible for up to 40 million deaths just as Mao was responsible for up to 40 million deaths. You talk about these losses as if they didn’t matter and then decry the relatively minimal loss of life that resulted from the removal of Saddam.
Personally I don’t think the USA is responsible for the civil war aspects of Iraq. Imagine a town run by organized crime where the thugs and theives are kept in check by a powerful mafia boss. Your logic is that we shouldn’t remove the mafia boss because the thugs and theives will then loot and attack people. I don’t think your position is unreasonable, but I do think you’re wrong to attack thos who want to remove the mafia boss/Saddam. Can’t you see that the police force that removes the mafia boss isn’t responsible for the death the thugs cause when organized crime is less organized.
Wrong HeLi,
Look over my posts. When did I ever focus on loss of Iraqi life as my prime gripe with the war?
And no, I don’t talk about these losses as if they didn’t matter. But I do think there was little the US could actually do about them without risking not only an equivalent amount of Chinese or Russian death, but also a large number of American soldiers killed and a horribly weakened United States. I would even wager that the “American Century” never would have happened had we decided to take on either Stalin or Mao.
Who can estimate the death toll from that?
I’m also not concerned with the idea of taking out Saddam per se. I don’t even care if the US had a good reason or not. I don’t care if we invaded because of oil, because of non-existent WMD, because of humanitarian concerns, or because we thought Saddam was a tacky dresser.
But I do think if you’re going to pull one of these military stunts, you’d better have the capacity to back up your intentions with force. It was plain to most analysts during the invasion that we didn’t have sufficient troops to effectively police Iraq. Even I felt that way, and I’m not even an expert.
There was no way we were going to be able to pull Iraq off while simultaneously managing Afghanistan, defending the Korean DMZ, policing the Taiwan Straits, maintaining our remaining Asian and European military bases, and withholding a sufficient quantity of men and equipment for other possible flare-ups.
If North Korea were to cross the DMZ right now, would we even have a response? If China started a rocket and missile bombardment of Taiwan right now, could we do anything about it. If Russia decides to re-annex Ukraine, Georgia, or just about anyone else, do we have a deterrent?
No, no, and no. We’ve got nothing, zip, nadda. Everything is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we’re losing both countries. I just don’t think you people realize what’s at stake here.
I’m talking about the complete collapse of American hegemony. And you people are wringing your hands over a few thousand deaths in Baghdad.
Heli,
The problem with war itself is that is inherently so immoral and evil that it is virtually impossible to conduct it any righteous manner. You mention Stalin and Mao’s murder of millions, yet you don’t mention the fact that Stalin was our ally against Hitler, nor do you mention the fact that he actually murdered ten times more than what Hitler killed. In waging war against a German dictator, whom Roosevelt adored in the years preceding WWII, we allied with a Russian dictator. Where’s our sense of right and wrong here? We sleep in bed with a monster in order to defeat another monster? There’s no righteousness in that.
How many times have you heard the metaphor of polygamy used to deliver a standard gospel message? Hardly. And that’s because polygamy is such a controversial subject that no General Authority would ever mention it in a talk without generating unwanted hysteria and confusion. So, if polygamy is a taboo subject among us, why can’t the idea of war be taboo also? If we can warn young people against addicting substances like tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs, why not warn them against the more destructive evils of war addiction?
Just look at the scourge wreaked upon Iraq: there are now about 2 million homeless refugees who have fled the country. Why, that’s almost the entire population of Utah! I’m not even talking about the dead and maimed who number in the hundreds of thousands. Mind you, this all happened within four years. Now tobacco and alcohol may be bad substances, but they don’t wreak the same havoc at the same alarming rate. As for illegal drugs, I’d say the destruction is comparable, but only because there is a state-sanctioned “war on drugs” going on. It’s really a re-enactment of Prohibition on a much grander and brutal scale. Without a government bent on waging “war on drugs” at all cost, I doubt that these addicting substances will bring so much damage to society.
The idea that the immoral occupation of Iraq by the US prevents civil war is a myth that’s already been debunked as far back as 2005:
Does U.S. Occupation Prevent Civil War in Iraq? Think Again.
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0501civil.html
The metaphors you use to interpret the harsh conditions in Iraq simply do not apply. The ugly truth is, our immoral presence in Iraq contributes to fanning the fires of civil war there. Our govt takes sides on their domestic quarrels. That’s why the Iraqis don’t think we are a disinterested party that’s serious on establishing a credible sovereign govt. When 90% of the Iraqi population now say that attacking US troops is justified, then you know we have a very serious credibility problem there. That a civil war could erupt after Saddam’s ousting was exactly the reason why the French wouldn’t join Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” in 2003. In other words, Bush and those who clamored for war were properly warned of the dire consequences of taking out Saddam. That’s why it’s so incredulous for you to now say that the US (or to be precise, the neocon advocates of war) cannot be blamed for this sorry outcome.
Miguel, can I just say “out to lunch?” How far did you have to leap to go from President Hinckley giving a talk about the war between good and evil to–it’s okay to do meth? My heck.
HeLi, if you’re the same Heli who used to comment here a year ago or so, welcome back.
Annegb,
Rest assured, there’s no leaping involved. I am merely comparing a warning on one evil and the lack of warning on a greater evil. If we can warn our members about certain addicting evils, why not warn them about the mother of all addicting evils (war)? This really boggles me. Maybe you have an explanation?
The idea that our nation is so addicted to war is very obvious. Since the end of WWII, neither Germany nor Japan, both aggressors in that war, has ever attacked another country. That’s already more than 60 years ago. On the other hand, the US has been bombing and invading countries left and right for the last 60 years. There isn’t a single year when our country has not been waging war since WWII concluded. We have never really known peace. For a country that claims to be Christian, this is really, really ironic.
If we want our young people to hold fast to the gospel, we must convey to them the relevance of its message in their life. Otherwise, if it isn’t relevant to their situation, there’s no point holding on to it. And for it to be relevant, it must be realistic. Take a second look at this passage from Pres Hinckley’s message:
We must be united. An army that is disorganized will not be victorious. It is imperative that we close ranks, that we march together as one. We cannot have division among us and expect victory. We cannot have disloyalty and expect unity.
If you look at the harsh battleground realities in Iraq today, that passage above is not true. The Iraqis are not one people. They are divided along ethnic and sectarian lines. There are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Without a central govt to control them, they bomb and kill each other with impunity. In short, they are not united. Compared with them, our military is the most organized army there. We have the best logistics, a solid command structure, and most of all, the best trained army in the world. Our troops don’t shoot and kill each other the way Iraqis do.
BUT… and this is a big BUT… In spite of our unity and their disunity, we are not winning the war. There’s this small area in Baghdad that we used to control in 2003. It’s called the “Green Zone”, the allegedly safest place in Iraq. Not anymore. We’ve lost control of that last April. Suicide bombers can now infiltrate it at their own time of choosing. As Bush hinted yesterday, it’s probably going to take some 50 years to retake Baghdad alone (we’ll never control the whole of Iraq, just as we never controlled the whole Korean peninsula).
What Pres. Hinckley said about disorganized armies is not necessarily true, especially when seen in the light of the Iraq War. That’s why using metaphors of war to convey gospel concepts can be self-defeating. Really, it’s about time we take a second look at the metaphors we use because, I tell you, our young people are very, very smart.
Miguel,
Japan and Germany weren’t responsible for playing world cop either.
There has never, in the entire length of world history, been an em-pire as benevolent as the United States of America. That is something for the world to rejoice in. Which is why I’m so put-out that Bush is screwing it up.
Seth,
Re: Vietnam–
I’m one of those silly idealists who believes the war might have been won. In fact, I think we were really close to it at a certain point. IMO, our pulling out was an utter tragedy.
I don’t want to see something akin to the fall of Saigon in Iraq. IMO, that is probably the biggest black-mark in our military history.
Yes Jack, I’m aware that militarily we were close. I’ve read those arguments as well.
But we’re talking world politics, not a massive game of Risk.
On the home front, the war was lost long before the pullout. Military action never happens in isolation from political, moral and social realities. Even if our military had “succeeded” in Vietnam, the war never had any chance of ever becoming a “success.”
This isn’t a giant global computer game we’re playing here, no matter what Tom Clancy thinks.
Seth,
It’s not a game of risk, nor was it a game of risk then. It’s really a game of prophecy–of political high priests sitting in their soft-seat think tanks conjuring up whatever prophetic social forecasting that justifies their own [a]morality.
I’m sitting at the kitchen table and my chair’s quite hard thanks.
Ah! That wasn’t aimed at you personally, Seth–well, at least not anymore than the “Tom Clancy” bit was aimed at me. I took it more generally.
The British em-pire colonized HongKong, Singapore, and Malaysia. The US colonized the Philippines. Yet, a casual look at the history of these Asian countries, and where they are now economically, will tell you why the US is not the benevolent em-pire you are claiming it to be. For several years now, HongKong and Singapore have been at the top of the World Index for Economic Freedom, surpassing even America the “Land of the Free”. HongKong, Singapore, and Malaysia must have learned something from the British that the Philippines never learned from the US. In fact, the US must have learned something from the British which is why it too became an economic powerhouse itself.
But that’s really beside that point. One issue I’d really like to tackle is GeoffB’s comment #21 where he mentions Pres. Hinckley’s continuing silence on the Iraq War, why this must be taken as a support for that War, or a general support for the war on terror itself. I think this is a dangerous position to take. This is a stance where one relies solely on one input, and excludes all other inputs.
The problem with relying on Pres. Hinckley’s silence on the subject is that silence in itself opens up to all sorts of interpretation. In this case, two possible meanings would be that [1] he wishes to remain neutral or, that [2] he wholeheartedly supports whatever Bush does in this war. These two positions can be valid interpretations, but they are not the same. In fact, option 2 excludes option 1; if you really support Bush, you cannot be neutral. (Bush himself declared on so many occasions that if you’re not with him, then you’re with the terrorists.) Because silence lends itself to more than one interpretation, one cannot really depend on silence alone for a guide.
In this case, we need to triangulate our bearings. Triangulation means we take inputs from two or more positions in order to verify where our own position lies. The scriptures contain very valid inputs. The collective wisdom of our community, which are not part of the scriptures, are also valid inputs (the US Constitution is a good example of this distilled wisdom). So are the wisdom gained by our parents’ generation, as well as our own experiences. Scientific data, because they give meaning to natural laws, are also important inputs to consider.
I don’t think that God meant for us to rely solely on what the living prophets have to say on every subject, especially when he has given us many sources of truth. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God. The prophet isn’t the only source of God’s words, otherwise, we will have no need of the scriptures. In fact, doesn’t the D&C tell us that we’re not supposed to be commanded in all things? Yet, GeoffB’s explanation in #21 above seems to imply that we rely solely on Pres. Hinckley, not on any recent categorical answer of his, but on his silence. I think is a very risky proposition. So hazardous, I doubt that Pres. Hinckley himself would encourage that.
“HongKong, Singapore, and Malaysia must have learned something from the British that the Philippines never learned from the US.”
Yes, they learned that employing a huge workforce of abysmally lower class folk at rock-bottom salary pays large dividends.
The US has always had a highly hands-off approach to world rule.
Is this thing going to let me comment now?
This thing is not letting me comment again.
It only lets me comment when I don’t actually comment.
Apparently I can only write one sentence comments.
Curtis, I apologize for our software limitations. They affect everybody and appear to be unpredictable. Hopefully we will have them resolved someday. 🙂
This would be a convenient explanation, but it does not hold water. Wages in HongKong, Singapore, and Malaysia are so much higher than the Philippines such that Filipino teachers holding bachelors degrees are willing to work as house helpers in those countries. In fact, many of these domestic workers earn more than salaried corporate workers in the Philippines’ business centers. This has been a fact of life for the last 20 years or more. This alone has changed the country’s economic landscape to the point that foreign currency remittances from Filipinos abroad have become its main source of income, not domestic businesses.
Again, this is not true. You have probably not heard of the Philippine-American War that lasted for some 40 years after the US replaced Spain as the Philippines colonial master at the closing of the 1800s. This war was severely criticized by the Anti-Imperialist League whose vice president was no other than Mark Twain “The American”. The war produced some 200,000 civilian casualties by conservative estimates.
When you murder this many people in the name of economic exploitation, I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “hands-off approach”. In fact, the US Army employed the services of “Roaring Jake” Smith, a veteran of the savage Plains Wars against the Indians, whose commmand, “The interior of Samar must be made a howling wilderness,” made him all the more notorious. You have Americans themselves bloodying their hands when people revolt against their rule, and you say this is a “hands-off” approach?
One sure sign of an em-pire in decline is when the imperialists themselves start believing their own propaganda.
Miguel,
The Philippines, with it’s 7000+ islands, has had problems almost from the beginning of time with peasant revolts and insurgencies of one stripe or another because of its incredibly fragmented demography. I don’t think it hardly matters what government is in control there.
Yeah the Philippine-American war was not good–more of a blunder than anything else. (and I don’t think it lasted as along as you suggest) But what about Japan? Or West Germany? Or South Korea? After the war reparations, were we there shoving a shotgun down their throats–forcing them to run their internal affairs according to our liking?
Miguel,
Of course I’ve heard of the Philippine-American war. Don’t assume that just because I’ve failed to draw the exact same conclusions from history that you have, that I am ignorant of that history. You are being highly presumptuous.
Did it ever occur to you that I might have already read about America’s shortcomings, and NONETHELESS come to the conclusion I stated above? Or is it inconceivable that a person might know what you know, and yet arrive at different conclusions than you have?
This is must reading for those on this thread who still believe it is immoral for U.S. forces to be in Iraq.
BY DAN SENOR
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During Sunday night’s Democratic presidential debate, the candidates cited an oft-repeated source of the mess in Iraq: The White House’s refusal to heed knowledgeable advice.
Indeed, it has often been said that the president got into Iraq because he disregarded advice from the true regional experts: foreign-policy “realists” who put together the Gulf War I coalition and counseled President George H.W. Bush against regime change; “moderate” Sunni Arab Governments; and the U.S. intelligence community.
But what if today these groups were actually advising against an American withdrawal?
Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president’s democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: “The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.”
And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration’s naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: “When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don’t have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq.”
A number of Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region’s authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.
A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that “If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America’s military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize ‘Iraq Plus’?” (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)
I heard similar warnings made repeatedly on a recent trip to almost every capital in the Persian Gulf–to some of America’s closest allies and hosts of our military.
Likewise, withdrawal proponents cite career U.S. intelligence professionals as war skeptics, and not without basis. Yet here is what the U.S. intelligence community predicted in its National Intelligence Estimate early this year: “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. . . .
“If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution: neighboring countries–invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally–might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; al Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country–particularly al-Anbar province–to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.”
If the presidential candidates go on a listening tour, it’s important to consider one additional group: A number of Western reporters who have spent the past few years in Iraq.
The White House has actually been inviting Baghdad bureau reporters to the Oval Office–however belatedly–so the president can hear their observations. One of them is John Burns of the New York Times. He won Pulitzers for his coverage in Bosnia and Afghanistan before throwing himself full-bore into Iraq. This is how he described the stakes of withdrawal on “The Charlie Rose Show” recently:
“Friends of mine who are Iraqis–Shiite, Sunni, Kurd–all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now. It’s really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.
“It’s difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world’s flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there’s complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless.”
Earlier on the same program, Mr. Burns laid out his own version of Iraq Plus. “If you pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here.”
It would be one thing if only the architects of the Bush policy and their die-hard supporters opposed withdrawal. But four separate groups of knowledgeable critics–three of whom opposed going into Iraq–now describe the possible costs of withdrawal as very high.
If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position?
The American people are understandably frustrated with Iraq. But this does not mean they will be satisfied with politicians who support a path that could make matters much worse.
Mr. Senor, a former foreign policy advisor to the Bush administration, was based in Baghdad from April 2003 through June 2004. He is a founding partner of Rosemont Capital
The Philippine-American War lasted way through WWII because the peasants never ceased their “minor combat operations” after “major combat operations” have concluded, that is when an exasperated US decided to finally “give’ the Philippines its “independence” in 1946. Many of these insurgents (the HUKs), who actually collaborated with the US against the Japanese, saw through US intentions, and never gave up. By the 1960s, they embraced Communist propaganda, not because they want to become godless atheists bent on establishing a worker’s paradise, but because of sheer anger against the Americans.
The “shoving down their throats” operations done by the US are never made public, just as few today realize that Saddam was a CIA asset shoved down the throats of the Iraqis. It should be sufficient to point out that many groups and factions that supported the US during WWII became its sworn enemies by 1950s (the Philippine HUKs, for example). Germany and Japan are probably exceptions to the rule. We treated them with some respect because we cannot afford that they align themselves with Russia. I don’t think many of you realize that after WWII, the most devastated city next to Warsaw was Manila, primarily because the US had major military installations all over the Philippines that are legitimate targets for destruction. Yet, bulk of the war reparations were given to Japan and Germany. This aid ensured that within 20 years, heavy industries in these two countries will be back in business.
If the US had treated its allies like the Philippines with the same respect it gave its enemies in WWII, then maybe today, there won’t be 5,000 US marines stationed in Mindanao trying to quell a Muslim insurgency. That’s why, in many countries around the world, they say, “It’s better to be the enemies of the Americans, than to be their friend.”
Given the facts of the brutal US colonization of the Philippines, how then can you say that American hegemony is more benevolent, and more “hands-off” compared with, let’s say, the British? It’s not inconceivable for me that someone can come up with different conclusions other than mine, but I would like to see first how they analyze the facts to support their conclusions.
Dude, do you even know what the British em-pire was all about? Ever read about the Boer War? The colonization of Africa? The opium trade in China?
Now, I’ll admit, as em-pires go, the Brits were pretty darn good. Absolute saints compared to the Belgians and Spaniards. Their colonies have tended to prosper far more than other former colonies. But they had plenty of brutality of their own.
The US is very hands-off in its approach. It enjoys far greater influence and power than any other em-pire in history. Our economic domination of other nations is more complete than that of any nation so far. Our military superiority dwarfs that of the British, Romans, anyone.
If we were out to abuse this power, believe me, we had a hell of a lot more chances than just the Philippines and Iraq. America has been a very benign (meaning hands-off) em-pire and most world political historians I’ve read agree.
You are blowing the Philippines thing waay out of proportion. It was more-or-less and isolated incident.
Now, if you want to talk about how we butchered our way across thousands of Native Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny, that’s another matter. But the Philippines, ugly as it was is small potatoes in the big scheme of things.
By the way Geoff,
Remember how Bush used to say American forces would stay in Iraq “as long as they are needed and not a day more?”
He isn’t saying that anymore.
Now he’s saying they will stay there permanently BASED ON THE KOREAN MODEL. Permanent US military bases. He’s already building them, complete with massive airstrips. The US embassy in Iraq is the largest in the world.
Bush is trying to lock us into a permanent Cold-War-style occupation of Iraq.
2008 can’t come soon enough. Hopefully the next president will have the good judgment and backbone to undo EVERY SINGLE THING Bush has worked for during his eight years of conducting the imaginary “war on terror.” There’s hardly anything this misguided idiot has done right in foreign policy.
Who is Dan Senor?
One thing that characterizes his opinion against withdrawing from Iraqis that it shows the “bad consequences” of withdrawing. Whether he is quoting or criticizing Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Zinni, or others, he never fails to mention these consequences.
And so I wonder… where was Dan Senor before the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and created this quagmire for itself? Was he like the French, who warned us of the dire consequences of invasion and occupation at the time it mattered most? Or was he like those neocon cheerleaders of the war who made sure all questions and debate against it was stifled, and that consequences were never talked about?
For more info on who Dan Senor is, follow this link:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_Senor
Seth,
“Bush is trying to lock us into a permanent Cold-War-style occupation of Iraq.”
In your view, is the US currently occupying Japan, Korea, Germany, and other nations where we have a permanent military presence? Leaving a military base in Iraq makes great sense both for us and for the Iraqis.
Just to make myself clear: All hegemonies are morally evil, including US hegemony. All wars that seek to preserve or sustain hegemonies are by themselves moral evils. So when you say that US hegemony is benevolent, to me that borders on the incredulous. No one in the world likes US hegemony for the simple reason that no one in the world appreciates the idea of strangers and foreigners, even if they’re Americans, telling them what to do in their native land.
There is also a Book of Mormon principle that says men were created to act for themselves, and not to be acted upon. The meaning is unmistakeable: No one has the right to exercise unrighteous control over someone else. Hegemonies are not nothing but dominating and controlling other people against their will.
Contrary to your assertion, the US occupation of the Philippines and the ensuing evils it produced is no exception here. Fact is, I have yet to see a former colony of the US prosper in the way the British colonies prospered. This is not to say that the British were less brutal than the Americans; I don’t downplay British brutishness the way you want to downplay US brutality in the Philippines or in other countries around the world. Do you think Abu ghraib or Gitmo are just a flukes in US history? I don’t think so. Those atrocities have been going on for at least a hundred years; only your standard highschool US history textbook don’t cover them.
If the US ever managed to extend its influence far beyond what the Roman, Spanish, or British em-pires achieved, it’s not because the Americans were more benevolent. It’s only because technology (trains, planes, telephones, etc) made it so. Had those earlier em-pires enjoyed the same advanced means, theirs would extend just as far. In fact, if the Russians had not followed Communism as an economic theory, they would not have bankrupted themselves in the middle of their quest for world supremacy, thus preventing further advancement of US influence. (Of course, now that oil costs more than 60 bucks/barrel, and with Russia a major producer of oil, it has filled enough war chests to to get back in the game and reassert itself against US encroachment. Hegemonies have nothing to do with benevolence).
I think you’re confusing the fact that while many foreigners enjoy Mickey Mouse, McDonalds, Michael Jackson, or Madonna, that they also like our military as well. Only Americans are in love with their military, the world isn’t.
Now, one thing that really bugs me with your position on US hegemony is the fact that the founding fathers of this nation built a country with republican ideals. Their worst nightmare was seeing America become an em-pire, the very monster they detested in the British. The world problems created by the US today are the very dangers they have warned us hundreds of years ago. That’s why the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that contain the debates behind the establishment of this nation showed how anti-hegemony the founding fathers were. They were highly suspicious of government, and were totally against centralizing any type of govt power. In short, they were anti-imperialists.
Yet, here you are, bemoaning the decline of US hegemony. I don’t dig this, dude. I really don’t. You ought to be happy. The greatest thing that can happen to world peace in our day is the collapse of this immoral US dominion.
What’s with spelling the word em-pire with a dash? Did I miss something?
Never mind…just answered my own question. Stupid.
Miguel,
Historically, times of hegemony are times of relative world peace. It’s when hegemony collapses, that warfare and bloodshed dominates the globe.
So yeah, I think hegemony is a fairly good thing. So do a lot of people around the globe. Don’t confuse the opposition to Bush’s stupid handling of American hegemony with opposition to hegemony itself. International trade flourishes under hegemony, as does global law and order. Nations are hesitant to war with each other due to the presence of a common policeman.
It’s great stuff. What you are proposing is an international state of anarchy.
But honestly, I don’t see this conversation really going anywhere. I think you’ve already made up your mind that you aren’t going to agree with me, I see little point in wasting time trying to convince you otherwise.
Have fun at the anti-America rallies.
Miguel,
The comparison you draw between U.S. colonies and British colonies is an “apples & oranges” comparison. The U.S. typically has not been in the business of transplanting its mainland folk in distant colonies as were the British in days gone by. I think that, more than anything else, accounts for the difference.
One important oath that a US president swears by when he assumes the office is the oath to defend the Constitution of this republic. So does every member of the armed forces. The Constitution is what defines America. More than that, it defines who a true American is, and who really is a true anti-American.
Now, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows this country to become a hegemony or an em-pire. Most of the rules you’ll find there are prohibitions against what the federal govt can do. After all, its main purpose is ensure that the federal govt does not usurp powers that belong to the “free and independent states”. That’s why this document is virtually useless to anyone bent on using our nation as a vehicle for world domination. I can bet my $4.99 that you will be hard pressed to find an imperialist, hegemonist, or neocon expounding their abominable musings on constitutional grounds.
So before you start pasting your “anti-American” labels on anyone, I hope you realize that such accusations won’t stick unless the Constitution makes them stick.
But to keep you happy and entertained, let’s talk about US hegemony one more time: If I were to point out the zenith of this em-pire, I’d say it would be the years right after the end of WWII. This was the time when the nations of the world were licking their wounds in war, while our nation stood virtually unscathed. It was our most productive era, as well as our most reproductive era, when babies were born like rabbits because one working man’s wages alone could support his family. Anything that had “Made in USA” in it was the de-facto world standard. We had the atom bomb, and could obliterate any country we wanted to, except the Vatican.
Now, if your theory about hegemonies were correct, then that era should have been a time of great peace. But it wasn’t. Six months after we got “The Bomb”, some Russian mole had passed the recipe to the Soviets, so that we got locked in nearly 50 years of nuclear arms race. Only 5 years after WWII, we were back at war, this time against the Koreans, who in 3 years fought us to a stalemate. Sen. McCarthy had his hands full plucking moles in our govt by the dozens, while the CIA was busy subverting uncooperative regimes all over the planet. By the 1960s, the Soviets were ready to nuke Florida and other major US cities from bases in Cuba. We started a proxy war in Vietnam, and by the 1970s, the world gaped in horror as the last US helicopter scrambled out of Saigon. It was also in the 1970s when the burdens of war built so much economic and political pressure that it forced the Nixon administration to unpeg the US dollar from the gold standard, a move that heralded a gloves-off approach to the destruction of our money by the federal reserve bank. By the 1980s, impoverished Americans resigned their fate to the doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction” against the Soviets, a doctrine whose seeds were planted in WWII.
Even if I want to believe your theory, there is no moment in US history that shows we or the world enjoyed genuine peace at the peak of our hegemony. It’s not there at all. When the Cold War ended with the economic meltdown of our nemesis the USSR, the ensuing years should have brought us peace since we alone remained as the sole superpower in the world. But it didn’t. By 1991, we were shooting Iraqis, and before the decade ended, we were bombing our former allies the Serbs. In policing the world, we created more enemies than we could ever encounter in a thousand nightmares. Where then is the peace that you say hegemonies are supposed to bring? Nada.
As for the other claim that hegemony is a “fairly good thing” and that “many people around the globe agree with that”, that is really nothing but a rehash of your earlier assertions. Proof by repetition alone is propaganda, not proof. This is why the discussion seems to be going nowhere. Contrary to your presumption that I have made up my mind, I will tell you right off the bat that I have changed my mind on many things. But I don’t change my beliefs unless:
– there is a moral justification based on scripture
– there is a verifiable basis in US history that adheres to the Constitution
– there is a scientific reason, or a common sense explanation
In the absence of this criteria, I would find it intellectually difficult to change my mind on anything. I’m sure you too will find it hard to change your mind, but that’s because you have your own criteria to follow. Now I’m not in the discussion to change people’s minds. I’m here because I know my political beliefs are not perfect, but must tested by fire and further refined. As the Book of Mormon teaches, there is an opposition in all things, and only by opposition do we learn to distinguish the good from the bad, the desirable from the undesirable, the sensible from the utter nonsense.
Nope, sorry Miguel. Good try though.
America has never, in its entire history been a world hegemon.
Post WWII – America’s zenith – we still had that little problem of the Soviet Union having the largest army in Europe. The US had a nuclear deterrent, true, but it proved utterly impotent to stop the march of Soviet aggression across Eastern Europe. When Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest, our nuclear capabilities proved non-fungible. Then the Soviet Union quickly gained nukes and challenged US supremacy. For the rest of the 20th century, it was a bi-polar world. Hegemony means ONE single power.
That has never been the case with the US – ever.
The closest we ever got to actual hegemony was right after the Persian Gulf War. Democracy and free markets had been demonstrated as the superior force. Furthermore, the much hyped Soviet and Chinese arsenals had been shown to be so many tin cans in the face of US firepower on the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq.
If America ever had a shot at hegemony, it was then.
In short, both periods you point to as examples of American Hegemony are nothing of the sort. Both were transition periods. Transition periods have always been historically violent.
You’d have to point me to a period where the US had successfully ridden out the violent transitional period and had settled into the role of hegemon to really give a good argument against hegemonic stability theory.
But we don’t need a hegemon to observe how the collapse of power is generally a bad thing for global peace and prosperity.
In fact, the worst violence in history occurs when a former global order collapses. The collapse of the Soviet Union has caused a transitory period of violence in places like Serbia and Central Asia. The rapid decline of US power hasn’t started yet, but will have similar, if not worse consequences.
Instead of just defining what a hegemony is or its “transition periods”, perhaps it would help if you could:
– identify a historical example of a true hegemony as per your definition since you contest the idea that the US is such one, and
– pinpoint within the lifetime of that hegemony a period of relative peace that can be attributed as a result of that hegemony.
You see, if you go back to your comment #87, you said that you were “talking about the complete collapse of American hegemony”. Yet now, you’re saying that US has never been a world hegemon. Well, if the US isn’t a real hegemony, then what complete collapse were you lamenting about in the first place? Perhaps the “complete collapse” is not real also?
Consider this: You said that a hegemony brings relative world peace, and when it collapses, warfare and violence follows. Now, as an example, you say that the closest we got to having such one was at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Yet in 1992, Bush lost the election despite the fact that he gained celebrity status for routing Saddam’s army in Kuwait. The reason was that our economy was in really bad shape during his term because he adhered to Reaganomics. And so Clinton took over, and in no time we were bombing and rebuilding nations. Now Clinton gave us some semblance of prosperity, though it was mostly sustained by hot air, so we re-elected him. In his second term, we got so sick and tired of the bombing, of nation-building, of the runaway expansion of govt, of Monica’s stained dress, that we chose Dubya in 2000.
Clinton’s hot-air bubble prosperity finally popped and gave us the 2000 dot-com crash. Before that, in 1995, Mexico went through a peso crisis that served as catalyst for Argentina’s financial troubles and eventual monetary collapse. That meltdown dragged Brazil and Russia with it. By 1997-98, emerging Asian tiger economies took severe blows when their currencies collapsed left and right in the region.
If warfare and violence are signs of a hegemony’s demise, I can’t make sense of your claim that the US could have been a hegemony in the years after 1991, when the era was characterized by warfare and worldwide economic turmoil. In fact, how can the US become a hegemony when its current account deficit in 1991 of $4 billion ballooned to $155 billion in 1997? Maybe it was really collapsing? But then you say the US isn’t a real hegemony, so then it couldn’t really be collapsing? The whole thing sounds like Strawberry Fields.
“Nothing is real”.
Sorry Miguel, I wasn’t being very careful with my terminology. In the first instance, I was referring to American hegemony as a work in progress that is currently being sabotaged by our President. In the few years following the Persian Gulf War, we had a very good shot at making the US a true hegemon and starting a period of global liberalization and prosperity. It’s slipping away now.
But I don’t think I meant that it’s something we ever achieved. My fault for sloppy word choice.
Most examples of hegemony in world history are actually not global, but localized phenomenon. Rome is the closest you get to world hegemony, and even that em-pire had limited geography. Britain is not an example, since, although it enjoyed periods of economic dominance, and ruled the waves, it never had the land forces to challenge the continental powers in any serious fashion.
But one thing is certain, the collapse of the old order of things and the rise of a new order, is always accompanied by rivers of blood.
A collapse of American power will be and unmitigated disaster for the entire world on a scale we haven’t seen since World Wars I and II. That is my central point.
Seth,
I see several problems with this theory of hegemony that [Concept #1] defines hegemony as a “sole world power” that [Concept #2] brings peace and prosperity.
Using the Roman em-pire as the closest description, you concede that although it had a very extensive dominion, it still didn’t reach total world domination. East Asia (China, India, Japan, etc) and the two American continents were simply out of its reach. That em-pire is recognized to have ended by 500 AD. If still you don’t consider the British em-pire as a hegemony, then that means the world has not had one in the last 1,500 years. In short, your best example is still a non-example, and we haven’t really seen one for a looonnnggg time.
Yet somehow, the world (the West, that is) experienced peace and prosperity at certain intervals, like that period at the end of the 1800s, before WW1 when technology developed by leaps and bounds, when people and products crossed countries without hindrance, the way electronic information in our day criss-crosses the planet at blinding speeds without any regard for govt control.
I don’t think one can connect peace and prosperity with hegemony. What seems to be evident is that peace and prosperity happen whether there’s a sole world power or not. Now, if we haven’t seen a true hegemony for the last 2,000 years, don’t you think we can really afford not to see one at all?
As I’ve said before, I am prepared to change my mind about anything as long as they meet my criteria. But looking at Concepts 1 and 2 of your theory, and comparing it with what can be verified in known history, I see something that reminds me of Swiss cheese. For a theory to successfully explain historical phenomena, it must be tried, tested, and re-tested using historical data. Honestly, I don’t see how it is really going to work at all.
So what we do at this point is take your theory to its most logical conclusion: the Police State. In a country where the State is the “sole power” and the citizens are not allowed to oppose it, we ought to see genuine peace and prosperity in that country. After all, in a totalitarian state, the govt is the hegemony within the state boundaries. Yet in every police state we’ve seen in the last century, where the govt exercised total control over the economy, everyone of them bankrupted their state and consequently brought chaos and ruin to themselves. That’s why if a hegemony doesn’t work within the limited confines of a police state, how else is it going to work for the entire planet? It won’t.
The rivers of blood that you fear most have actually happened, not because a hegemony is collapsing (remember, we haven’t seen one in a very long time), but rather because a nation-state is trying to become one. If you look at history in the last 500 years alone, the rise and collapse of the western em-pires followed by the rise of nation-states that try to achieve em-pire status is what has caused these rivers of blood to flow. In the last 50 years alone, most of the wars we’ve seen, if not all, are the result of the US and Russian em-pires trying to become supreme lords (true hegemony) of the planet.
The best thing that ever happened to world peace in 1989 was the dissolution of the USSR. The best thing that can happen to world peace in our day is to see something similar in the US. With the free fall of the US dollar already in the initial stages, this year should be a very interesting one. Of course, it will be painful for us Americans in many ways, but as one Marine in Iraq observed, “We’ve been kicking other people for so long… it’s about time we get kicked ourselves.” What goes around, eventually comes around.
Miguel,
Your last paragraph is a complete and utter travesty, right? Please tell me it is.
You know Miguel,
There are days on the bloggernacle when I sometimes feel like I’m just completely “out there.” Over-the top rhetoric, outlandish ideals, fiery speeches, and unjustified ideological carpet-bombing.
Thanks for letting me know that I’m not the only one.
Jack,
You know how they say that you shouldn’t overload your wall outlets with too many power plugs connected? Or that you shouldn’t rob banks or stores for a living? Well, you can do these things and get away with it, but you won’t get away with it forever. The odds will slowly get stacked against you, and then at some point you’ll either find yourself fried real good, or having a cold shower in the slammer.
This is what they call the Law of the Harvest. As a man soweth, so shall he reap. In the Book of Mormon, how many times do we read of the Nephites going through cycles of peace and prosperity, and then through chaos and poverty? When they choose righteousness, they gain happiness; and when they choose wickedness, they end in misery. This is a law whose consequences one cannot avoid. For a long, long time, the US has been planting seeds of destruction, and we have been warned not to plant them or else we will reap their ugly fruits.
A good example is the warning not to invade Iraq or else we will get mired in a civil war. This was given by our French allies, and for that we called them “surrender monkeys”. In 2003, all we heard from Bush, the neocons, and the mainstream media was that we must bomb Iraq… never mind the consequences. “It will be a cakewalk”, “we will be greeted as liberators”, “democracy will triumph”, etc. etc. Even one senator took the French-bashing further by renaming “French Fries” to “Freedom Fries” in the senate cafeteria. None of these knee-jerk, jingoistic reactions changed the course of the law of the harvest. We’re stuck in a bloody quagmire because we ignored the warnings.
The truth is, how I wish we can avoid tasting the bitter fruits that we planted. But seldom in life can we choose an action, and avoid the consequences. I guess that’s why the Bible sometimes say that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children up to the fourth generation. Some sins are just so abominably evil that their consequences linger even when the sinners have all long died. You can wish that what I said is a travesty, but it is the truth. The great USSR meltdown will happen in the US because we followed their footsteps. They marched over a cliff and fell; and the funny thing is, now that we are marching over a cliff, we think we’ll actually fly.
When Napoleon Bonaparte attacked Russia and got bitten by the Russian winter, you’d think that Hitler, the man who shocked Europe with his awesome blitzkrieg, would be smart enough not to make the same mistake. Yet some people just never seem to learn. Now look at Afghanistan and Iraq, and ask yourself when the last time it was a foreign army occupied those lands and never got violently kicked out. You’d think that smart men in the White House, Pentagon, CIA, or FBI would have all learned that lesson. But looking at where we are right now, we’re exactly marching over the very cliffs where great armies before us have all fallen and crushed themselves. Under these circumstances, I think it’s a greater travesty to hope and dream that we’ll actually fly, even if we fly like pigs.
As my physics teacher loved to tell our class: It’s not the falling down that kills; it’s the sudden stop.