We Attack Them so They Attack Us so We Attack Them so They…
I wanted to highlight and respond to a comment by Sailorcurt because I think it is a good summary and representation of the general argument for preemptive war, and in particular, the case for staying in Iraq and going into Iran.
This is not a private conversation between me and Sailorcurt. I encourage everyone to respond to either side if you feel moved to do so. If you would like to respond with a whole blog post, I’ll link to your article here and start an impromptu blog carnival.
Please do not resort to personal attacks or immature remarks. Those comments will be deleted.
All quotes are from Sailcurt’s final comment from the Ron Paul at the Debate post.
In regard to why we are so worried about Iran getting nuclear capabilities when Pakistan already has them:
Pakistan’s government is not calling for the extermination of the Israeli people or the pushing of the Israeli state “into the sea”.
Making threats and actually carrying them out or even having the ability to carry them out are completely different things. I could say the same things and no one would take me seriously. Plus, Israel has 200+ nukes of their own and an extremely powerful military. I think they can take care of themselves.
Punishing someone who is weaker than you are just because of something they say is the act of a bully, pure and simple.
And let’s not forget that Israel isn’t exactly an innocent babe. Some of the animosity toward them is certainly deserved. (I’m not saying attacks are deserved, just that it should be understandable why they are hated.)
Especially when the aforementioned lunatic has made no bones about the fact that he hates us and our allies and supports those who have attacked us in the past and have expressed a dedication to doing so again in the future.
Well of course he does. We’ve been threatening them for over 50 years.
- We’ve disposed of their democratically elected government.
- We supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war.
- We now have a large force stationed nearby and have made known that we are not afraid to use it.
Let’s add some perspective to the situation.
What if China invaded Mexico, replaced their government, and decided to set up a few military bases?
Would we be upset? Would we begin making moves to bolster our national defense? Would we be outraged?
It seems they have much more of a right to be angry at us than we have at them. This is usually the case when dealing with powerful Empires vs. smaller, weaker territories.
Your characterization of an attack on the government of Iran is sophistry.
I could turn that accusation right back around by saying that the arguments both for going into Iraq and Iran are pure sophistry based on appealing to prejudices and emotion. So far, all the arguments try to appeal to either fear or patriotism.
Iran can avoid an attack by ceasing the threatening activity. Should they continue the threatening activity, any attack would be designed to eliminate that threat, not to punish, and our efforts against Iran would be directed against the government, not against the people.
What threatening activity? Please point me to where they can actually pose an imminent attack on the United States? Are they going to fly a missile over on a balsa wood plane?
Isn’t this the same rhetoric used before we went into Iraq? We were just going in to eliminate the “threat” of WMD’s. Then we were there to depose Saddam. Then we were there to rebuild the entire nation, even though that’s exactly what George Bush said he would not do when he was elected.
Let’s return again to our “perspective addition” hypothetical.
After China has invaded Mexico, and the United States has made it’s grievances known and made threats, China decides it doesn’t much like the talk coming out of the US leaders. So China says that unless we stop organizing a defense, stop secretly supporting Mexican insurgents, and stop all research into more advanced weaponry, they are going to strategically and preemptively strike certain targets in the US. At the same time, they surge some more troops into Mexico.
What would our reaction be to that?
Would there be collateral damage? Of course. But any attack will be designed to minimize that collateral damage and the US military has become quite adept (relatively speaking) at doing so.
One million Iraqis dead is qualified as adept?
But we must face the realities of the world as it exists today, not pine for how great things would be had we never gotten ourselves into this mess.
And one of the realities of today is the sheer cost of our foreign policy of warfare and nation building. It’s bankrupting us. We will eventually have to pay for it, and sooner rather than later, I’m afraid. And the people in power orchestrating the current war and calling for another one are not going to be the ones who have to pony up, so they get to do whatever they want without suffering any real, direct consequences for their actions.
And the other reality is that these actions are not making us any safer. We are just reacting to their reactions from our original meddling actions (again, the concept of “blow back”). What we are doing now will just give birth to even more of the same, or entirely new, problems to deal with in the future.
As the world exists today, the US is hip-deep in matters international and there are significant numbers of people who hate us for it…who hate us enough to go to any lengths to punish us for perceived wrongs. We cannot simply play turtle, pull our head into our shell and hope they leave us alone. I do not believe that they will. And I believe that, even if I thought they might, the risk is too great to take that for granted.
No one is saying that we should play turtle. It’s a straw man. All I’m saying is that we need to stop playing Rome and pretending that Caesar can save us, that we can form a new Pax Romana apart from Christ. Rome certainly created “peace”, but burning down insurgent cities and calling the resultant barren wasteland “peace” is a lie that has been repeated and exercised by governments throughout all of history.
As the post title hints at, it just creates a never-ending cycle of bloodshed. It eventually caught up to Rome. It will eventually catch up to the United States.
Violence begets violence begets violence.
In fact, this was one of the core messages of Jesus in his warnings to his contemporary Jews. Repay violence with violence, and it will catch up to you. And it certainly did with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Due to our actions overseas, our national security is worse off now that it ever has been.
Why not pull the troops home and actually use them for the national defense they were created to maintain (especially the national guard)? After all, we were protecting South Korea better than Washington, D.C. on September 11th.
And I don’t want them to leave us alone. I want to talk with them, to trade with them, to lift all embargoes and sanctions that kill innocent people. As Jefferson said, I want friendships with all, alliances with none. Free trade forms bonds of mutual prosperity and respect that make war less and less likely the longer it continues.
I know I’ve used China in my other example, but what is the actual chance us attacking China or vice versa? Both nations are so tied together economically that it would literally be suicide to risk damaging it. It even goes so far that we ignore the gross human rights violations China commits.
And that’s the way it should be with as many nations as possible. It’s the only way to curb the innate aggressiveness and violence built into every government of man, and it’s only way forward for true peace in the future. But someone has to take the first step. Someone has to be the first to turn the other cheek. If not now, then it will be delayed again and again until it really is too late.
The desire for war in governments is not really that surprising. They are born in bloodshed and sustained only through acts and threats of violence and force (taxes, fines, etc.) so it’s only natural this violence extend to foreign policy as well. But it is up to the people, and especially Christians, to recognize and do everything in their power to curb this tendency, and not encourage it, because it certainly doesn’t need any encouraging.
The necessary question to ask is what is the real reason the war drums are beating, and why they beat so effectively when we were preparing for Iraq? Who is benefiting from the war, and who would benefit more from a state of warfare than from a state of peace? Basic Public Choice theory holds that any government action can be explained by politicians and bureaucrats acting in their own selfish interest. So which one’s are benefiting from perpetual warfare?
I hope to explore this more in the future.
This response was not meant as an attack on Sailorcurt. As I said before, I singled his comment out because I thought it was a good summary of the opposing arguement.
And due to a cursory reading of his blog, there are probably more issues we agree on than disagree. But the issue of warfare is so huge, important, and ugly that it can dwarf all others. It’s why some Democrats are flocking to Ron Paul’s banner, even though they disagree with him on almost every point economically.
BLOG RESPONSES:
Don't forget to subscribe to my full RSS feed to get daily updates of this blog!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I don’t have time right now to give this the attention it deserves but for now I’ll address the very end:
This response was not meant as an attack on Sailorcurt.
Needn’t have been said. Disagreeing with me (and even “attacking” my position) will never be construed as a personal attack. Thank you for a well thought out, reasoned, and cordial response…more cordial than the comment to which you were responding, I must admit.
And due to a cursory reading of his blog, there are probably more issues we agree on than disagree.
Correct. I’ve been reading for several weeks now but I’m not much of a “me too” commenter. I tend to only comment when I have something constructive to add or if I disagree. That sometimes leaves the impression that I disagree with a particular blogger more than I actually do because the majority of comments I leave involve the few disagreements I have with them.
In fact, this particular issue is the only one so far that I have had any significant disagreement with you on.
But the issue of warfare is so huge, important, and ugly that it can dwarf all others. It’s why some Democrats are flocking to Ron Paul’s banner, even though they disagree with him on almost every point economically.
And, conversely, the magnitude of this issue is exactly why I won’t vote for Paul even though I agree with him on virtually every other subject. I personally believe that we are in a life and death struggle with radical Islam and if we don’t take the fight to them, we will be fighting it right here at home.
I may be wrong…I’m not infallible…but if I’m right, are you willing to pay the price in blood required to find out?
It’s sort of like the old bumper sticker: “If you’re living like there’s no Hell, you’d better be right.”
If we decide to live like there is no threat from our enemies, we had better be right because it is going to be our kids and grandkids paying the price with their lives if we’re wrong.
That’s just not a chance I’m willing to take.
More to come.
You’re right. It is a life and death struggle. But I don’t think we should fight it with the weapons of this world. There other more efficient, better, and, to risk the oxymoron, peaceful ways of combating the threat.
This was posted just yesterday on the Lew Rockwell blog:
We can’t afford to fight evil with evil, because it makes things worse. Rather, we must fight evil with good. What else that exactly means in practice, I’m not sure yet, but I hope to explore it further.
I personally believe that we are in a life and death struggle with radical Islam and if we don’t take the fight to them, we will be fighting it right here at home.
Awesome! Fighting a guerrilla war on one’s own territory is far cheaper and more reliable than using traditional warfare techniques against guerrillas in their territory.
The oversimplification of the “just trade with them” solution is profound. It only completely ignores the world as it is and assumes everyone else to be rational and working toward their people’s best interests. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. In fact, historically speaking, in terms of international relations, I’d say that that’s rarely the case and definitely is not the case in this circumstance.
Awesome! Fighting a guerrilla war on one’s own territory is far cheaper and more reliable than using traditional warfare techniques against guerrillas in their territory.
I hope that was sarcasm, even if it was, I don’t really get your point. In case it wasn’t:
So are you volunteering your kid’s school to be the one held hostage Beslan style? Are you volunteering your mother and father to be blown up in a homicide bombing while eating ice cream at your local Dairy Queen? Are you volunteering to be beheaded for the edification of internet video mavens around the world?
You don’t seem to take the ramifications of a war in your neighborhood very seriously…especially one wherein the enemy is utterly ruthless, viciously brutal and who’s preferred target is unarmed, helpless civilians…you know…you.
By the way…what do you mean by “fighting a guerrilla war on one’s own territory”. It may be cheaper when your side is the guerrillas but we wouldn’t be. How many schools and malls would have to be bombed before the American people started screaming for the government to “do something?” How long do you think it would take under those conditions before our God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights were restricted or eliminated one by one? How long before we became a total police state? After all, the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact you know…we HAVE to give up some freedoms if we expect to be protected by nanny government. It’s all for our own good and all that…
I haven’t finished a reply post yet, I’ve had other pressing matters come up including the recent demise of my computer. A memorial service will be announced shortly.
Anyway, I plan on doing it on a post on my blog so when I get it up, I’ll let you know.
It doesn’t assume any such thing. All it does is take off the table aggressive violence. In the case of aggressive violence perpetrated against us, it still allows for defensive violence. But in this case, we would be the clear aggressors, and so they would have every right to act in defense.
Simply bombing some more is the completely irrational position in that it assumes that they will just take it all in stride and that somehow it will make their ill feelings toward us disappear. But the evidence is clear that it will make it worse, and we will just be pushing back payment toward a later time.
We can keep pushing it back, but we can’t do it forever. We can’t afford, and the spirit of an oppressed people will not let it stay downtrodden forever. We will have to pay our debts sooner or later, both real and allegorical, and if we keep putting it off, more interest builds up and the less likely it is that we will be able to pay them off satisfactorily and find a more effective solution.
It’s a never ending cycle. It will go on forever
The oversimplification of the “just trade with them” solution is profound. It only completely ignores the world as it is and assumes everyone else to be rational and working toward their people’s best interests. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. In fact, historically speaking, in terms of international relations, I’d say that that’s rarely the case and definitely is not the case in this circumstance.
Good thing that there’s parts you completely missed. Like the “shoot them if they attack you” proviso.
I hope that was sarcasm, even if it was, I don’t really get your point.
My point was that if anyone tried to bring a war here, it wouldn’t be the way you are describing. My point is that it’s far cheaper to take care of ourselves here than it is to take a war over there.
Blog Response (Fair Warning: This is a long one)
I’ve been involved in a bit of a tit for tat exchange with New Liberty Creation over the past week or so.The original post that begin the exchange was regarding the & …
As blogspot apparently doesn’t like my bloviating comment length, I am force to respond to Sailorcurt here in this comment section. You can read his response here.
Now my response to his response:
But would you then have the right to attack him first? Would you be justified in breaking into his house, harming him or killing him, and confiscating his guns? Would that hold up in court?
Cause and effect. Is our hatred and animosity of Islamic terrorists “understandable”? I would say it is. Why don’t we allow that these emotions can be very real in other cultures as well?
Not really. Israel is just another corrupt government of man.
And the majority of the Iranian people KNOW it. He is very unpopular there and will most likely be voted out in the next election.
But if we attack or invade, we will just be proving his paranoid and ridiculous ramblings justified, and the Iranian people will be more likely to rally behind him.
If you want to weaken and undermine him, let the democratic process take it’s role, because he barely has any real power at the moment. I already posted the link about how competing satellite TV is already helping to facilitate this.
But attacking is probably the worst thing we could do.
Read this article here. It was very enlightening to me personally and helped me understand the Iran situation from a different perspective.
Also, please read this article that does a much better job of putting us in Iran’s shoes than my measly attempt did.
Also, this one about the supposed danger of Iran, when Israel is more likely disrupt peace.
Yes. For the national defense. I guess how we define defense is different, and that’s where our disagreement lies.
You mean extra-constitutional, congressional undeclared war that’s going on in Iraq?
Yes, we have too many unconstitutional programs domestically, but the biggest check by far is to fund our unconstitutional war(s).
Not really. Only 3% of the Iranian population is what we would call “Arab”, and only a few of those hold any grudges. Most are Persian in ancestry and try to undermine the Islamic influences at every turn.
Maybe we should bomb Alabama because there is some radical minority there that still harbors grudges against the North from the Civil War?
Well the rhetoric has changed, and we aren’t as obvious about it. Now we call it “bringing democracy to other people”, but the actions are still eerily similar.
We have troops all over the world. We are continually trying to export our culture, our laws, our form of democracy, etc. We might not be as blatant, but we are very aggressive and imperialistic in promoting our ideals and interests, whether other people want them or not.
But with Iran, it is getting more blatant and the parallel is clearly there. Submit to our demands, or be steamrolled. It was the Roman way.
I make no such assumption. I just don’t think pre-emptive war and strikes falls under self defense, especially when the reasons for doing so are dubious and misleading, as the above articles help to highlight.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. I’m not advocating pure pacifism. But violence used to aggressively achieve an end, whether misguided or not, like the revolutionary Jews were practicing, was completely contrary to the original vocation of Israel, and contrary to how a Christian should be promoting the Kingdom today. But this is a different topic altogether.
Again, I’m not arguing against self defense.
It was nearly ten years between the last successive foreign terrorist attacks on US soil.
Then what is the viable starting point? When the world is already a perfect place of peace and harmony?
I freely recognize that right. I don’t recognize the right, however, of you going to their house, their property, their territory, and start breaking things, taking them out, and then maybe adopting their kids because you think the kids would be better off.
Governments are corrupt by nature. So we must ask what is the real reason, the actual selfish reasons why the war drums are now beating for Iran. Who will be the true beneficiary?
Think long and hard before trusting a politician, because he certainly doesn’t have your best interest, or your families, at heart.
NLC Responds
And I must admit that he makes some valid points. I still don’t agree with his conclusions, but some of his points are good. I’m going to repost his entire comment here because he tried to post it as a comment reply to my post but coul …
My last word
On my exchange with New Liberty Creation. If Matt decides to respond again, I’ll leave him with the last word and let it rest.No analogy is perfect and the 90 year old crippled guy analogy is no exception. I used that an …