WAR Question

[Madspirit]

I have wanted to post this since I joined DU two years ago. I have been afraid to because I have noticed that often if anyone posts something that doesn't tow the party line, 100%, they get accused of being a Freeper. (I had to look that up to find out what it even meant.)

I am a lesbian, a feminist, a leftist. I have been around as one, for longer than a lot of you have been alive. I demonstrated against the Viet Nam war, against Nixon, etc. I still have the buttons..."Nixon eats iceberg lettuce"...<g> I have worked with the farmworkers, etc. My leftist creds will stand up just fine against anyone's.

If you go read all my posts, I doubt you will doubt my liberalism.

Still, I have this question. It is sincere.

Is there any time war is justified? See, I kind of thought we should go into Afghanistan before 9/11. I thought the very first second we saw that they make a woman kneel down while putting a bullet in her head, was a good time to go. I am a leftist but in extreme cases, I am not a non-interventionist. In some cases, I think intervening is the only moral choice.

I am also not that big on "cultural sensitivity". I gave that up the second I learned about female genital mutilation. I find that cultures often start whining about that when they want to commit an atrocity against a member of their own society.

No, I do not support Bush or HIS war. I do not think we should be in Iraq and I think the soldiers should be brought back right this minute.

I am asking about extremes where certain members of the populace are treated horribly, worse than slaves...usually, you might note, it's women and children.

So I am asking you guys, as a fellow of yours, someone always a leftist, if you think there is ever a time war is justified.
Madspirit

[malta blue]

1. Madspirit

Not to doubt your liberalism, I too feel that in some cases war is justified. If the US has taken steps in Sudan while OBL was hiding there, could 9/11 have been avoided? I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that the crisis in Sudan in leading to an epidemic of refugees throughout the continent. Can't something be done?

[treestar]

2. Now that the US has nukes, it's almost never justified

There aren't going to be any attacks on the US. It not only has nukes, it used them once. Even another country with them won't want to be pulverized in the response.

I could see invasions based on trying to save people from tyranny, though initially, I would leave it to their neighbors. The US may use that as an excuse for Iraq, but then why Iraq and not many other countries where similar things are happening? And we just get in the middle of it.

[Jacobin]

3. I agree with you

I think sometimes war is necessary. I like to think that it is a last resort, something that can be done without second guessing because there is really no other alternative.

Unfortunately, we haven't been in one of those situations in the last 60 years, IMHO.

By the way, I don't think you should be hesitant to bring things up. People can 'question your cred' all they want, but debate is good and questioning your bona fides is not a good argument against someone.

Peace....irony intended.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Does it matter?

Has a war never been fought because it wasn't justifiable? War is a natural occurrence for expanding circles of power. Just like a couple humans will fight here and there, war is the same thing, just increased greatly in scale.

[bryant69]

5. I wouldn't worry about towing the party line

But I would post more, if you want to avoid accusations of freeperdom. Getting that 1000 posts is a big sign you have been around more. Plus you seem sharp enough.

War is sometimes justified, and military incursions to prevent tragedies as well - such actions are always going to have their critics, but that's the way the world works.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Madspirit]

7. 1000

I'm trying to get there as fast as I can...<g> Truthfully, I joined in 2005 and then promptly forgot about you guys. I run some groups of my own and they take a lot of my time.

After the midterms I wanted to connect with other liberals, put in a search, found you guys, tried to join and found I already had. I have been posting a lot since.

I will get to 1000...<g>
Madspirit

[wuushew]

6. For being the world's largest economy we have precious little carrot

and a lot of stick.

Wake me when Amerika makes a geniune attempt at diplomancy anywhere in the world.


:nuke:

[patrice]

8. It is justified when there is concrete evidence that we are, or soon will be,

attacked.

I admire your compassion for the moral issues you cite. I just don't think War is an effective way of dealing with those problems and there probably are some good alternatives.

The only conditions under which I *might* consider it would be:
Those who are against the war do not have to pay for it nor enlist.
Those who choose to enlist and/or pay for the war do so absolutely free from any ignorance, bias, or external influences.
They fight only an enemy that is also absolutely free from ignorance, bias, or external influences.
Their deaths actually solve the problem.

[Deep13]

9. Actual national defense (as opposed to imperial aggression),...

...intervention in certain humanitarian disasters.

Cultural sensitivity= we'll ignore your savage barbarity while hoping you ignore ours.

[wuushew]

10. If you are a leftist, where is your sense of relativism?

If barbarism in Afghanistan serves as justification for destruction of an extant culture then why is the United States not subject from attack from Canada for its use of the death penalty?

Is the state of the world such that a supposed more advanced country is always in the right when speaking down to a lessor one? Is any sense of hypocrisy ameliorated by the relative size and strength of said country in the pantheon of nations?

[Madspirit]

12. Sorry

I don't see it the same. We don't just apply the death penalty, which I totally oppose, just by the way, to only women or only men or only. It is unfairly applied to minorities and many of us do as much as we can to stop that. Women in Afghanistan were basically worse off than slaves. WORSE OFF.

...and usually those on death row, have committed some heinous act. (Okay, now bring up all the exceptions to that and the innocent on death row, even though I said I oppose the death penalty.)

..and don't question my liberalism because I posed a question you don't like. ...and I criticize my country all the time and yet...I do choose to live here. ...and I didn't even say our country, I don't think. I just asked a general question about whether war is ever justified. :P
Madspirit

[Raskolnik]

32. I don't know about the OP, but *my* sense of "relativism" doesn't force me to close my eyes

Do you honestly think the Taliban's actions in Afghanistan are equivalent to theuse of the death penalty in the U.S.? I don't. The death penalty is wrong for a host of reasons, but its use in the U.S. simply does not compare to the scale of the Taliban's actions.

Do you honestly think the "destruction of an extant culture" like the Taliban is regrettable? I don't. I would not mourn the loss of the Taliban's brand of Islam any more than I would mourn the loss of the National Socialst party in Germany or the Klan in the U.S.

[Virginia Dare]

11. I'm not sure if war is ever justified per se...

but sometimes it's inevitable, simply because situations aren't stopped until they've reached a point of critical mass, World War II for example.

Hey, don't ever worry about being called a freeper, if you stick around here long enough you will be called that and many other things. I've been called a neocon on DU before. Just put on your flame-proof suit and be comfortable with yourself and your own beliefs and have fun debating and discussing issues with other people, none of whom think exactly alike.

:hi:

[MyNameGoesHere]

13. For me it is not if war is ever justified

but WHEN will the people of this planet reach the level of decency to make war Never an option.

[DaveJ]

14. My simple reaction is No

I do not believe in fighting fire with fire. With all of the financial, technological, and diplomatic resources available, I think that a better solution almost always exists if we really want to prevent humanitarian abuses in other countries. The problem exists when we have leadership that lacks the intellect to pursue nonviolent solutions. Bush apparently thinks that killing people is the answer to every problem.

[Madspirit]

16. Superb Points!!

Thank-you. Yes, there are alternative ways to put pressure on a country. There are economic sanctions, etc. Sometimes these ways just seem so slow when lives are on the line but killing is never a solution against killing, is it?

I guess the person who posted the death penalty example was pretty right on, after all. I always say that when I meet someone for the death penalty. You cannot fight barbarism by committing a barbaric act.

Thanks all of you, for your thoughtful responses. I just get so pissed sometimes at the way women and children are treated, the world over. We all know what John Lennon said about women and it's true.
Madspirit

[magellan]

15. This will sound hard

I've thought about this a lot, and I'm far from immune to the suffering of others no matter where they might be in the world. But we should never pretend to be the world's police. Despite the exceptionalism so many Americans feel about themselves and this country, we're no more qualified to right wrongs than anyone else. Indeed, our rather unique LACK of understanding of other cultures along with our tendency to botch things up as a result should stay our hand when we perceive the need to intervene "on behalf" of others.

Our military is for our defense, when we're attacked -- period. And I don't mean when a US oil company is attacked abroad; I mean a physical attack on this country, like Pearl Harbor. The rest is ideally for a body like the UN to oversee and manage, diplomatically when possible, with troops from member countries when necessary. (I say "like the UN" because that body has rarely lived up to its potential due to political interference from countries like our own.)

I understand and share your feelings about things like atrocities against women and children in other countries. But we've got to get over the idea that we can make the world to our liking by using our military. Who the hell are we to impose our will on others when we can't even treat our own decently?

Save the military for what our founding fathers intended it for. We'd need it less if we stopped acting like the rest of the world owed us something.

[pampango]

20. Germany never attacked us. They only declared war on us,

because they were allied with Japan. What if Germany had not done that and just continued with their conquest of Europe and Russia?

I know the "exceptionalism" that you are referring to - we are special, liberty and justice for all, and all of that. But there is another kind of American "exceptionalism" that I see. And that is the belief that we must fight poverty, oppression, genital mutilation, slavery, racism, sexism, labor rights and many other evils, if they occur within the confines of our national borders. But if these things happen a couple of miles over the border or on the other side of the world, they are not our concern. They are foreigners, after all, not Americans (and we are special).

I am not suggesting wholesale use of the military, just that we don't build high walls and not care about or do anything for people who suffer in other countries. As a last resort, we should not always rule out the military.

[magellan]

28. You're right, I backed myself into a corner on the physical attack thing

Of course our entry into WWII was absolutely correct. Hitler had to be stopped. I'll amend my "no use of the military without a physical attack" by adding the caveat that it depends on the nature of the threat, and having leaders with the wisdom to make the correct determination.

But I have to take exception to your inference that I don't believe suffering foreigners are our concern. I never said that or anything like it. The OP was talking about using our military in such situations, and I explained that I don't feel taking it upon ourselves to correct the ills of the world using force is our job. A UN- or NATO-sanctioned military action to ease suffering is one thing; unilateral US military action is entirely different. Mostly because we don't know how to take care of our own and only meddle with others when it's in our interest, not theirs.

We should always strive to make others' lives better, using every peaceful means at our disposal first, and our military in concert with other nations when necessary. What I do oppose is the idea of the US striding alone into other countries with guns blazing to, as you put it, "fight poverty, oppression, genital mutilation, slavery, racism, sexism, labor rights and many other evils" like some great crusader. We just aren't that special, much less altruistic enough, to do that and have it come out right.

In effect I agree with most of what you wrote. I'm sorry for not getting my thoughts down better.

[pampango]

33. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Sorry I didn't see it sooner.

We do agree for the most part.

[damntexdem]

17. People, including on DU, disagree all over the place on your question.

Personally, I supported the intervention in Bosnia/Kosovo -- thought Clinton acted too slowly.

In the abstract, I thought an invasion of Afghanistan justifiable after 9/11 -- but I opposed authorizing it with the Bushistas in power.

[HamdenRice]

18. Almost never -- and your post contains the reason why

First of all, war is a form of politics. It has a point, and that is to coerce some other government or non-state actors to do something. War is also horrible for people (it kills them in the most horrific ways) and is monstrously expensive.

So whenever someone says, we need to go to war, ask them what for. What are you trying to accomplish. Once you have pinpointed the purpose of the war, then ask, is there some other way to accomplish this?

Once you ask that question, the answer almost always is yes, there is another way. If there is another way, then war is unjustified.

In your OP you seem to be suggesting there are three things you see in the world that bother you so much you think war would be justified -- the execution of women in Afghanistan, female genital mutilation and treatment of some group as "worse than slaves."

How exactly, could war prevent the wrongful execution of women in Afghanistan? We have waged war on Afghanistan, and conditions have not improved for women.

How could war prevent female genital mutilation -- a custom, not a practice of governments? How could war prevent some group from being treated worse than slaves?

Most people are tricked into supporting wars for emotional reasons. "Those people over there seem bad, so let's smash them," seems to be the impulse behind your OP. That way of thinking is not connecting your goal (ending executions, mutilation, slavery) and your means (war).

People are easily misled about complex problems and seemingly evil practices. For example, today someone posted something about cocoa farmers in Africa using slave labor. Well, that's just preposterous, the person who posted that and others who responded just don't know what they are talking about, but it got people riled up. Ghana is one of the big cocoa producers in West Africa and the farmers use child labor -- but it is usually the labor of the extended family. Ghana, I assure you, does not tolerate slave labor. (The West African country with a slavery problem is Mauritania, not the cocoa producing countries further to the South.) But people will fall for it, and I'm sure if DUers were asked would a war on Ghana to end child slave labor be justified, many would say yes. It's like declaring war on Iowa, because families use their children to milk the cows.

Similarly with respect to genital mutilation, most westerners just don't understand this complex practice that involves circumcision for girls and boys at puberty as a rite of passage. Some cultures do barbaric things to these children; others are doing superficial scarification. But most Americans could be riled up into bombing African countries to stop practices they don't understand.

So I'm always skeptical of war, even for supposedly "noble" causes.

[Madspirit]

19. just fyi

In circumcision they remove the foreskin. In female genital mutilation, they remove the entire clitoris...which would be the equivalent of removing the penis.

I agree with your other points.
Madspirit

[HamdenRice]

21. fyi

That is not true. There are dozens of variations on female circumcision. Some, especially in Muslim areas that are obsessed with virginity, are as horrible as sewing the vagina closed. Some do remove the entire clitoris. Some cut the tip of the clitoris. Some slice it without removing anything.

The west has taken the position that it is all "female genital mutilation" and a hard line position that it must all be banned. But eliminating age grade initiation has had catastrophic cultural effects, essentially eliminating the concept of graduating to adulthood and marriage, leading ultimately to promiscuity, the AIDS crisis and millions of deaths. Botswana tried to eliminate initiation in the 1950s, and society began to fall apart, and they reinstated it.

A better approach would have been to educate people, especially traditional herbalists and "doctors" who perform these operations toward some symbolic scarification, along with scrupulous sterilization and hygiene.

[Madspirit]

22. let's remove the penis or part of it...

Let's see how well that goes over.

As we say about abortion, if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

If they were removing boy's penis or just part of it, the whole world would be on top of it.

Madspirit

[HamdenRice]

24. They are -- they're removing the foreskin

This is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to my post above. The topic of female circumcision/genital mutilation is now so toxic that it can't be discussed rationally or even factually. To do so courts being accused of being virtually a war criminal. But the reality is that in SOME cultures, what is done to girls and what is done to boys is quite analogous. We prefer to lump it all together and not even look into what is really going on, and all the cultural variations and possible ways forward. You yourself said, you're not interested in cultural sensitivity, which I suppose includes learning what actually is happening in the various cultures.

That's exactly how war, or war hysteria, works. "I don't want to quibble over exactly where the weapons of mass destruction are -- let's just get the bastard."

It amazes me that we can say virtually anything about Africa and feel comfortable, without even wanting to know the facts. Could anyone conceivably have a campaign to end infant male circumcision in Israel? Yet most Americans feel comfortable wanting to end the initiation system in Africa without even enquiring into the variety of procedures that are being done or the entire religious and cultural context in which its done.

Cultural practices can be changed more easily than they can be obliterated. Ban initiation, and you will just drive it underground and make it worse -- which is what has in fact happened in some countries.

When I lived in Africa, my roomate, a woman, once came home laughing because she had been at a party where everyone was watching a video of her cousin's initiation school, and she watched him running around nearly naked, in white powder, in rural Transkei. She explained that in the past, this was supposed to be super, super secret and for men only. Now they video tape it and watch it as though it's a video of a graduation party or wedding. Believe it or not, Africans are thinking beings and capable of cultural evolution.

[Madspirit]

26. removal

Removing the foreskin is not the same as removing the penis. The rate of cervical cancer in women is higher in those who have sex with uncircumcised men. Go google "Our Bodies, Ourselves". Removing the foreskin does not remove the ability to enjoy sex, etc. Removing the clitoris does remove the ability to enjoy sex.

I still agree with most of your points, just btw.
Madspirit

[HamdenRice]

27. It's just an issue that bothers me in the way it is discussed

It is very patronizing toward Africa and its cultures.

Firstly, removal of the foreskin does decrease sexual pleasure. It's big sacrifice that men undertake or are forced to undertake as babies, for aesthetic, cultural or hygienic reasons, and in Africa a sacrifice teenaged boys undertake for cultural and aesthetic reasons -- although now there is a big push to reintroduce adult male circumcision because it reduces HIV transmission.

As for what happens to women, all I can do is to repeat that you are lumping practices of many different countries and cultures together. I have lived in, worked in and traveled across Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Botswana and Zimbabwe, studied Africa in graduate school and read lots of African anthropology, and I can tell you that there are many different practices that the west is lumping together.

Until about 1990, it was always referred to in the anthropological literature as female circumcision until the campaign against it started, and all practices were lumped together as female genital mutilation. I realize that some practices in some cultures are horrific, but as a factual matter, they are simply not all the same. Like male circumcision, it is a sacrifice that for whatever reason, certain cultures have chosen to impose on its young people. Would it be better if it didn't exist? probably. But it exists and is central to many cultures. Better to deal with it by ameliorating and moderizing it than pretend it's going to go away by demonizing it.

And again, in terms of how people think of African culture, no one would dream of trying to end "infant male genital mutilation" in Israel, because everyone understands that it is central to Jewish religion and culture. Since it is assumed that Africa has no "real" religion or culture, we in the west can assume that these practices can just be lumped together, demonized and banned.

[Madspirit]

30. I understand

**And again, in terms of how people think of African culture, no one would dream of trying to end "infant male genital mutilation" in Israel, because everyone understands that it is central to Jewish religion and culture. Since it is assumed that Africa has no "real" religion or culture, we in the west can assume that these practices can just be lumped together, demonized and banned.**


I get this. I really do. If men clean themselves well, the cervical cancer risk in women goes down, also, just fyi. For your information, if I had a baby boy, I would not have him circumcised. I promise. Being 52 however, if I had a baby anything, it would mean another star flew over the East...<g> (Atheist actually, just attempting humor.)

Yes, this does touch on racism. Yes, people don't take the spiritual/religious aspects of African culture and religion as seriously as they do the Big Three Monotheistic Religions.

Still though, this started about women being shot in the back of the head because of fanatical extremists of Islam.
Madspirit

[Hosnon]

23. Yes, war can be justified.

Whether or not we have seen a justified war in a long time (or ever) is a different issue.

[tabasco]

25. When I was still in the Army Reserves I volunteered for Afghanistan.

I believed we had just cause to go in there and bust up the camps and get Bin Laden. Surround the place. Don't trust the Pakistanis to "guard" the border. Get the job done.

But Iraq was a clearly different situation and had nothing to do with catching the people who attacked us or anything worth doing. I was an active duty infantry officer for several years. I knew from a military standpoint that this war was unjustified from the beginning.

So yes, you can be a liberal and support a just war. Being a liberal does not mean being a pacifist. It means war will be the LAST RESORT and that maximum effort on DIPLOMACY is the way to go to save our soldiers' lives. Choosing WAR FIRST or choosing an UNJUST WAR gets our soldiers killed for NOTHING.

Oh- the Army didn't need me for Afghanistan and didn't call me up. Later, when Cheney's oil grab went to sh*t, they tried to force me to go to Iraq, and I resigned my commission (I'm damn glad the Army gave me the choice). I had no desire to serve in Cheney's oil army and they must have been DESPERATE to try and call my old ass back to war.

[CJCRANE]

29. I'm ambivalent about Afghanistan

because I think some good has come of it in some parts of the country.

But from experience I've realised that Bushco have no interest in women's rights or liberal democracy and would not trust their motives for ANY war whatsoever. For instance they let Bin Laden escape and swiflty moved all the resources over to their real target - Iraq - leaving Afghanistan to slide back into chaos.

[truth2power]

31. This is a very good question. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church and

most Protestant churches support the concept of Just War Theory. Here's one link, but if you google that phrase you'll find a great deal of information on all facets of this fascinating subject.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp

As stated in the above article, the theory actually tries to prevent war by "establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be morally permissable."

Needless to say, the Bush/Cheney Criminal Enterprise is not at all conversant with any of this.