Njorl said:
To a large extent, I agreed with Thomas Friedman's take on the war. There were 4 reasons:
"There was the stated reason, the moral reason, the right reason, and the real reason.
"
What he termed "the right reason" is really the only one that applies to US security. It conflates the two goals; it is necessary to change the world in order to make the US safer.
The right reason for the war, according to Friedman, is that dictatorial regimes in the middle east churn out angry young men willing to die in attempts to do great harm to the US. They don't even do it intentionally. It does not matter if these dictators are friendly to the US (Saudi Arabia) or hostile (Syria). Because their society is not free, and hostility to their government is not healthy, they turn their hostility to Israel and the US.
The idea is, if the states in the middle east develop democracy, the citizenry will be empowered to act on their dissatisfaction in a constructive way.
This justification assumes a lot. It assumes that we don't antagonize Arab Muslims beyond repair. It assumes we can make Iraq democratic. It assumes that the democracy will last and spread. I assumes that democratic states in the middle east will not produce (intentionally or unintentionally) terrorists.
That may seem like too many assumptions. But they must be weighed against against the reality that exists now. The nuclear suitcase bombs that will destroy Washington and New york have already been built somewhere. They may be in Pakistan or North Korea, but more likely, they are in a warehouse in the ex-Soviet Union waiting to be liberated by bribery. The best way to stop those bombs is if there is no one willing to carry them.
Njorl
You know Njorl,
Nobody in the world is waiting for lessons about ethics, democracy and freedom from America. We in Europe have our standards on ethics and I believe they are on a higher quality level. We don't need to use fake and hollow words like 'national security' and the 'national interests' to motivate our deeds. We don't tell what other people think. We don't believe in preemptive attacks to restore "justice". Our idea about justice is classic, not the Wild-West case of 'the good' and 'the bad' guys.
When Bush says: "A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure." we could ask first:"
Why is US not secure?". Are some countries or population full of jalousie, ... or is USA too rich ... or to smart ... or is there something else?
Can it be that during the years USA has really
upset a number of people, groups or countries by actions that were not justified? In another post you referred to the installation of a number of dictators by US. And indeed USA did so and judged economic values higher than human rights values.
This has to do with the capitalist system in which the stronger or smarter are 'better' than the weaker.
A different tradition and culture in Europe makes us believe that there are also values which are at least equal important, such as solidarity. Indeed the weaker groups of society need protection because sometimes the circumstances were unfavorable. I believe Jesus said something about that, something like: " What you do to the weakest ... ". Americans will describe that basic human solidarity in a negative sense as 'Socialism' but it has to do with human respect, dignity and ethics. We understand that some people in society are not or have not the ability to be very successful.
The reason that Europeans choose such a way has to do with Christianity but also with humanism, and we believe that this is something we may be proud of. A type a brotherhood. This is how the Human Right Manifest was created. Everybody has a number of fundamental rights. We still stick on them. It's part of our culture. Related to solidarity is a understanding that 'communication' between different visions is important. Try to settle things. Only use the hard way as the ultimate way.
But opposite to such humanism there is extreme individualism: Capitalism. This is the tough approach of the survival of the strongest and the fitest. Having the power gives your the right to do whatever you want. Thus: slavery, colonialism, imperialism ... The basics of this was even partly religious! Calvinism promoted that the individual success in business and wealth was a proof of being very near to God. So when you have the power your are right, and the weak deserve their problems.
So the whole problem between Europe and USA in approaching 'world problems' like Israel an Iraq is a different perspective. You see this even now in the different coalition approach on Falluja (US: show that we have the power, and UK: softly-softly).
My point is that USA is not secure for the moment because it has done a numbers of pro-profit things which have provoked counter-reactions. One of the reasons - probably the main reason - is that US has covered for many years the aggressive policy of Israel. Sure Israel has the right to exist (since it was internationally created by UN in 1949, and not by a miracle based on a bible written by humans) but Israel has also a number of obligations, such as the respect for human rights.
Infringing such rights, but playing innocent at the same moment and always covered by US, has caused a lot of resentment in the Islamic against US. That's the old but fundamental problem that gave the actual insecure situation in US. It accumulated. A solution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is key. Dialogue, communication. But is that the goal of capitalism? No, the goal is money. Conflicts generate money. Conflicts need weapons. Halliburton et al.
