DANNY COLLUM: Does our might make us right?

posted by admin on Sunday April 06, @10:42AM

4/5/2003 10:30:19 PM
Daily Journal

As we enter the third week of war in Iraq, illusions about a quick and easy conquest have faded. Americans and Iraqis are dying, and, whether we supported or opposed the decision to go to war, we must all pray for it to end quickly, and with the smallest possible loss of life.

But even as the battle for Baghdad looms, an American debate must continue about the policy that led us to war in Iraq. Even if victory does come soon, this war has set a dangerous precedent, and if the policies behind it continue, there may be other wars in our not-too-distant future.

Some say that debate about America's foreign and military policies should stop, at least until this war is over. But in America, it is not unpatriotic to question the wisdom of our government's policies during a time of war. If it is, then a young congressman named Abraham Lincoln was unpatriotic when he stood in opposition to the Mexican War. Lincoln supported the troops. He voted for every appropriation to keep them supplied while they were in the field. But, at the same time, he vigorously protested the policies that sent our men to Mexico. Lincoln thought we were conducting a war that was contrary to our national ideals. As Kentucky congressman Henry Clay said at the time, "This is no war of defense, but one of unnecessary and offensive aggression. It is Mexico that is defending her firesides ... not we."

Advertisement

Today we need leaders who will honestly face the fact that our war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity. We struck first. Iraq has not attacked us or our allies. Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant. We all agree on that. But none of Saddam Hussein's evil deeds constituted a legal or moral justification for our invasion.

Contrary to popular misperception, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with September 11. Our war on Al Qaida is just, and it should continue. But President Bush has sent our people to die in Iraq not because of anything Iraq has done, but because of what he fears that it might do, some day.

In effect, the president has declared that we - alone among all nations in history - have a right to live in a world without danger. We, and we alone, have the right to invade any country, overthrow any government, and eliminate any head of state, simply because they make us uncomfortable about the future. We can do this, not because it is legal or just, but simply because we have the power to do it.

We have decided that, in our case, might makes right. And if it works in Iraq, why not in Syria? Or Iran?

In its National Security Strategy issued last fall, the Bush administration called this a doctrine of "preemption" Others have bluntly called it a policy of empire. Unlike our British allies, we Americans have never been comfortable with that term. But it may be time to start using it, so we can freely and openly decide if it is what we really want.

Repeatedly over the past 200 years, America has faced choices about its role in the world, and those choices have been the subject of national debate. One of those times came with the Mexican War, and- despite the protests of Lincoln and Clay - the majority of Americans unabashedly chose Manifest Destiny. Fifty years later the debate was revived by the Spanish American War, in which we took possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. At that time the loyal opposition included America's greatest writer, Mark Twain, who said, "I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."

Thirty years ago, in Vietnam, we confronted the limits of our power, and, for a time, we scaled back our ambitions.

Now we face that old choice again. Will we be a democratic republic- the world's first and best- and lead the world by example? Or will we be an empire, and lead by the coercive force of wealth and military power? Will we be respected for living out the principles of our revolution? Or will we be feared for our weapons and our willingness to use them? At the moment, President Bush has committed us to one path, but we are still a free people, with voices and votes, and we can still reconsider.

Might alone does not make right. And in the long run, no nation can rule another by force of arms. If we continue to act as if we've repealed these laws of history, we will eventually find ourselves in some quagmire, re-learning the lessons of Vietnam.

Danny Collum is a journalist and a contributing editor for Sojourners, an international magazine of culture, opinion and religion. He teaches at Rust College in Holly Springs.

Appeared originally in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 4/6/2003 8:00:00 AM, section B , page 5

Source...

<  US arms group (Bush's Carlyle Group) heads for Lisbon | Robert Fisk: The Allied grip tightens on Baghdad  >