The Delusion of Moral War

I have many political discussions with one of my best friends. He is to the right on the political spectrum and I am to the left. We agree on some things and disagree on other things. Even where there is disagreement, I respect his position because it is always well reasoned. This is in sharp contrast to a lot of political debate today that consists of unsupported statements, repetition, and shouting. We disagree on the war in Iraq. I believe that Saddam Hussein was not the biggest threat to the United States and, as brutal as he was, provided stability in an unstable region. His position is that Iraq is strategically important because of its central location and oil, and that Iraq was an easy target militarily. He scoffs at the slogan of “no blood for oil” because he believes that is an unrealistic position. Based on our discussions and other reading, and given the tense world situation with the war in Iraq, war on terrorism, and recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict, I have been thinking a lot about whether morality should be part of the equation in international conflict.

We all want to believe that we are good people. We accomplish this by following certain religious tenets or acting in a moral or ethical way based on the norms of society. We also want to believe that the country we live in is a good country. When it comes to the individual, laws are the dividing line between good and bad conduct. If one engages in bad conduct, society punishes the offender through the criminal or civil legal systems. Although there is something called international law, there is really not an equivalent system of enforcing morality between nations. On the international level actions are determined by military or economic power. We are dishonest with ourselves when we proclaim the moral superiority of one country over another or seek moral justification for international conflict. Whether we like it or not, might makes right when it comes to war.

Let’s take the slogan “no blood for oil” discussed above. If an international crisis cut off the flow of oil to the United States, and our gas tanks ran dry, even the most moral and humane of us would be screaming for prompt and decisive military action even if that meant killing thousands of soldiers and civilians of the enemies. The United States dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese for reasons of brutal efficiency. We wanted to end the war quickly and valued the lives of our own soldiers over those of the Japanese. Many people in the United States and throughout the world were horrified by the images of torture at Abu Gharib prison. The actions there were determined to be immoral and beyond the pale for a moral country like the United States. I am not here to justify the actions. However, I believe that every one of us is capable of engaging in or condoning brutal conduct under the right circumstances. If your loved one’s life was at risk, would you not feel justified in engaging in torture if that would ensure his or her safety?

With respect to the current situation in the Middle East, it is ridiculous to argue that Israel’s response is disproportionate because it suggests some type of moral yardstick for military action. The simple answer is that Israel responded in a certain manner because it is able to do so. Do not think for one second that if Hezbollah had similar capabilities it would not hesitate to inflict maximum damage on the Israeli armed forces and Israeli citizens. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved on moral grounds based upon who lived on a plot of land first or last; nor will it be solved on religious grounds based on whose holy book gives better title to the land. Peace, even if begrudgingly, will come when the military and economic cost of warfare becomes too high.

My ultimate point is that as much as we want everything to be neat and tidy things are rarely black and white. Much of life, especially in the realm of international conflict, occurs in the gray areas. In the long run we would be better off abandoning a feel good approach to international affairs as a way of soothing our collective consciences, and simply accept the harsh reality that it all comes down to power, economic might, and military efficiency. As Niccolo Machiavelli said “War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms.” It is sad, it is disturbing, but in all likelihood true.

Predictable, Tired Arguments on Israel

On the way home from work I usually listen to the Ed Schultz Show. With the showdown between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon there have obviously been a lot of calls on the issue. I like the show because Ed always gives callers a chance to say their piece without regard to their position. I have heard a number of pro-Arab callers on the show the last few days and they never fail in returning to the same predictable, tired arguments which sound like everyone received the same talking points memo.

The first point that gets recited is that Israel is killing innocent Lebanese civilians. This is generally said without any acknowledgement that innocent Israelis are being killed by the Hezbollah rockets aimed at northern cities and towns in Israel. It also does not take into account the sad and unfortunate fact of war that innocent people get killed despite the latest technological advances in warfare. The next argument is that Israel's military response to the current situation is disproportionate. My question to them is what would be the response of any other country to a terrorist group operating with impunity on one of its borders. Should the Israeli government and military planners have done some kind of worldwide conference call to find out what the "appropriate" response should be?

It then does not take the callers very long to get to the heart of their argument which is that the current situation is all due to the plight of the Palestinians. This is followed by a recitation of how the Palestinians were thrown out of their homes and it would all be solved if they could go back. One caller even talked about a relative still having the keys to a house. With this type of thinking, it is logical that no solution has yet been reached. Whether the Arab and Muslim communities of the world like it or not, in 1947 the United Nations partitioned British-controlled Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states. I suggest people read UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which details the plan. The stock pro-Arab answer to the UN Partition Plan is that it does not matter that an Arab state was created because people still had to leave their homes and it does not matter they were given another home. An unfortunate fact of history and world events is that nations are created, nations cease to exist, international borders get drawn and redrawn, and people get displaced. If the Palestinians and the world Arab community do not come to grips with this reality, then the Mideast will continue in a cycle of violence, death and destruction.

I believe that it is still possible to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through negotiations. It will take courageous leaders on both sides who are willing to die to further peace such as Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin. The fundamental question that the Arab world must answer is whether Israel is entitled to exist as a nation within secure borders. If we keep hearing the same old tired arguments, we regrettably already have our answer.

The Word on Wordplay

And now for something less serious in nature. The other night my wife and I saw a very entertaining movie called Wordplay. The focal point of the movie is Will Shortz, who was been the New York Times Crossword Puzzle Editor for 25 years. However, the movie also tells the history of crossword puzzles, focuses on the people who make and solve crossword puzzles, and culminates with the annual American Crossword Puzzle Tournament created by Will Shortz. It was fascinating to see how crossword puzzles are created, and the collaboration that goes on between the creators and Will Shortz. It was amazing to see how fast the top crossword puzzle players can solve the New York Times puzzles. In one scene, the gentleman clocked himself in at just over two minutes. There were interesting interviews with famous crossword puzzle players such as Bill Clinton, Jon Stewart, Mike Mussina, and the Indigo Girls. Finally, it was great to see the camaraderie and sense of family of the people who come back year after year to play in the tournament created by Will Shortz. You are not likely to find this film at the local megaplex but it is worthwhile to see if there are theaters nearby specializing in independent films. If you cannot find a theater playing Wordplay, then definitely put it on your Netflix list.

Conservative-Yes, Compassionate-No

We may get to see another wonderful example of President Bush's compassionate conservatism, since Karl Rove stated that he is likely to veto a bill to expand federal funding of stem cell research. This is just another obvious move to shore up President Bush's religious conservative base. "We were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life," Rove said. He said research shows "we have far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells." It is offensive to me that this bunch would have the nerve to talk about the wanton destruction of life given the American soldiers and innocent Iraqis killed in the ill-advised, ill-conceived war in Iraq. I also wonder when Karl Rove picked up his M.D. or Ph.D. in order to give us his opinion on the use of adult versus embryonic stem cells. In fact, the National Institutes of Health state that human embryonic stem cells are thought to have greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. In my view, compassion for one's fellow man and the alleviation or elimination of suffering should be one of the prime goals of any religion. How can anyone with any shred of human decency or feeling trample on the hope of those suffering from diseases that may be cured through stem cell research. Tell your Senators to support the bill. Hopefully, President Bush won't have the guts to veto it.

We'll Get Together Then

As I was driving to work today, the late Harry Chapin’s song “Cat’s in the Cradle” was playing on the radio. While I have heard it dozens of times, I thought about how many people are living out this sad song of missed opportunities. In an endless quest for money, power, and prestige, many people seem to be sacrificing the precious commodity of time. For some people, it is always going to be about the bigger title, the BMW, the fancy vacations, or the next deal. For other people, their employers set the price of success and that price is, more often than not, a lack of personal and family time. In these days of cell phones, computers, e-mail, Blackberries, and WiFi, it appears that certain jobs are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I wonder about the toll such a life takes on an individual’s health and well being as well as on personal relationships. We hear a lot of rhetoric about “family values” but how can they be established when quality family time is in increasingly short supply for many people. The measure of success in life should be people and not things. Years from now I would rather be counting my memories than my money.

July 4th: A Time To Think

Independence Day is a great holiday. It is the official start of summer and is filled with fun things such as barbecues, picnics, fireworks, and going to the beach. While we are celebrating tomorrow, we should take some time out and think about the true meaning of the holiday. Over two hundred years ago, our Founding Fathers, a collection of the greatest minds the world has ever seen, chose freedom over tyranny and broke away from the British Empire. While this was done at considerable personal risk, the Founding Fathers knew that the reward of independence was even greater. I was reading the Declaration of Independence and the following part struck me:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Our Founding Fathers had the courage to stand up to King George. Yet today, very few of our political leaders have the courage to stand up to the latter-day "King George." Where would we be today if our modern-day politicians lived over two hundred years ago?