The post What we don’t say about the Gold Stars appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>If we needed to be re-awakened, the PBS Series “The Vietnam War” reminded us that men and women who served in Vietnam were certainly treated differently by the American people than those currently returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, Niger, and wherever. Disrespect was expressed towards many of those who returned from Vietnam, even though few had anything to do with defining the mission. Most were drafted, and they certainly deserved a pass, particularly from citizens such as me who found ways to avoid the military.
There is little doubt that a man or woman who serves in the military deserves special respect. Short of going to prison, they cede more personal freedom than virtually all others in our work force. In many cases, they put their lives in danger. The psychological tolls of sacrificed individual liberty and high personal risk are demonstrably high.
If we cast our gaze only on those who serve in the military, then it might make sense to place them on a pedestal. But as difficult as their lives may be, most of the rest of us face difficult challenges and often overcome them. Standard practice is not for us or our families to be given stars of any color for our service, even though we contribute as much or more towards enriching our society.
For a moment, think of the United States as being the 2017 Los Angeles Dodgers. This is the team with the best regular season record in the Major Leagues. They may well win the World Series to cap this outstanding season. But let us not forget that near the end of the season, they lost eleven games in a row and sixteen out of seventeen.
A reality check shows that when it comes to the post- World War II military record of the United States against under nations, it is not that different from the low-point of the Dodgers’ 2017 season. Korea may have been a very honorable draw, particularly at a time when we did not know whether the concept of “bleeding red communism” was a potential threat or a real one. Even with Vietnam, there was still uncertainty about the threat of communism.
But Vietnam became a loss for the United States, and it appears to be a compounded loss because we seemingly have not learned some clear lessons from the war. Perhaps the most succinct way to view these lessons is to apply the U.S. experience in Vietnam to major tenets of the Just War Theory, a concept that has withstood the test of time over several millennia.
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
With virtually all of these factors, the U.S. has made serious mistakes in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. It’s as if the Just War Theory had never been written and no one tried to learn lessons from Vietnam.
Part of the collateral damage of misguided American overseas ventures is that we bend over backwards to not associate the men and women in uniform with their missions. We want to give them a break which includes not attaching them to the foolishness of some of what they do. We would do better to help them earn their honor through purposeful missions.
Some Republicans have said that we should not discuss US policy in the wake of the tragic deaths of four soldiers. These are the same voices who are saying that we cannot discuss gun control in the wake of mass shootings.
Policy must always be on the table, regardless of gold stars, guns, or a host of other items that often prohibit us from improving the quality of life for Americans and others around the world. In the meantime, the U.S. should concentrate on being like the Dodgers and putting more stars in the ‘W’ column, a column that hopefully does not involve war.
The post What we don’t say about the Gold Stars appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Five bad reasons to intervene in Syria appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>Recentl,y Michael Doran and Max Boot wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now.” While their reasons may make sense in a purely geo-political sense, they seem to reflect none of the wisdom in the Just War Theory. The just war theory is essentially a roadmap to avoid initiating or entering a war that will get a country mired into conflict with very little chance of either winning or advancing the cause of human rights.
The theory has evolved over time with considerable input from Saints Augustine and Aquinas. Much of the Just War Theory is summarized in the following points:
A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
Under this doctrine, expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.
Another important point that has been added is that the war must be winnable. This certainly posed a problem for the United States in Vietnam, and currently is doing so in Afghanistan. A military foray into Syria would probably also not meet the standards of being winnable.
The arguments in favor of invading Syria that Doran and Boot make are:
First, American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Second, a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.
Third, by training and equipping reliable partners within Syria’s internal opposition, America could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, which are present and are seeking safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.
Fourth, American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory.
Finally, American action could end a terrible human-rights disaster within Syria and stop the exodus of refugees, which is creating a burden on neighboring states. Mr. Obama pledged earlier this year to strengthen the government’s ability “to foresee, prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.” Now he has an opportunity to do so. And by putting allies in the lead, Mr. Obama could act without sliding down the slippery slope toward a ground war.
The problem with the five points made by Doran and Boot is that each of them is plagued by the “IF” factor. They are wishful thinking that could come true, but there are strong chances that they would not. IF the intervention was not successful, then there could be a cascade of both intended and unintended consequences that could be very harmful to the United States, as well as other countries such as Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Turkey and possibly more.
The just war theory was created to void such consequences. The world was replete with wars that lead to such consequences dating back to the earliest of human history. Nowhere do Doran and Boot say that their ideas make sense only if American intervention would be successful. Nowhere do they say that the people of America must support the action, and if they don’t then our leaders should not embark on intervention. Virtually every component of the just war theory is ignored by Doran and Boot.
The pressure to intervene in Syria can quickly grow, as the internal genocide becomes more cataclysmic. The temptation will exist to do something about it. Diplomacy might help, but most likely only in limited ways.
On some days, it appears that the U.S.“lead from behind” strategy, along with European “lead from the front” strategy worked in Libya. On other days, it seems to have been a serious failure. We seem to know less about the rebels in Syria than we did about them in Libya. It is most painful to watch genocide and just stand by. However, in the long run, we may do more good for the world by following the principles of the Just War Theory, which means that, unless conditions change, the United States and other countries would be well advised to not directly intervene in Syria.
The post Five bad reasons to intervene in Syria appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>