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.
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.
posted by dbf729 at 8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home