On 2005-07-14 23:10:00, bandit1978 wrote:
"Were people in Atlanta (suburbs?) really terrified to go to the malls and stores after 9/11?
I guess I just had a different perspective on it- I went to Miami for a bit, and felt much safer and more relaxed, and the people down there hadn't changed- everyone was still strutting around South beach, lounging in cafes eating and drinking, ect...it was cool. (everyone in DC was on edge, for awhile it was "martial law" on the streets, I wanted to get away, plus I was running low on xanax)
T- I'm really sorry to hear about all your loved ones at war. How do you feel about it ? (like, do you think it's a just war and best use of their skills??). Just wondering. "
Bandit, I'm sorry for how harshly I just went off at you, but you struck a nerve (obviously). I don't think you *are* a snob, I think you were cheering your political party like we cheer our football teams (we all do it), but in a way that *sounded* snobby.
I come from a background that has some of that snob factor in it, and some of the reverse, and I had to learn the hard way that I'm no better than (nor worse than) other people from different backgrounds. And which things I did that came off to others as looking down on them---either through snobbery or reverse snobbery.
Because I'm so self-critical of going down that road, I guess I'm hyper-sensitive to it.
A just war? Well, what are the criteria for a just war? Just cause; right action; right authority; and a reasonable chance of success.
Well, Al Qaeda committed multiple acts of war against us. There are substantial ties of pre-war Iraq not to those acts of war, but to Al Qaeda after (as well as before) those acts of war. This makes Iraq militarily not a neutral but a co-belligerant. Also, we had a truce with Iraq, not a peace, and Iraq had repeatedly violated the terms of the truce. The first is enough for "just cause"---add the second and it's a slam dunk. So as far as I'm concerned Iraq satisfies the first element of the Just War litmus test: Just Cause.
It was also strategically a good choice of *which* co-belligerant to take on for various geopolitical reasons that I can elaborate on if you care. Iraq is centrally located to our problems, its regime one its people would not miss, and the strategic exit route from the bases in Saudi lay through removal of Saddam. Second element, right action, is satisfied.
Right Authority: The US was the target of several of Al Qaeda's acts of war, including the 9/11 attacks, the Cole Bombing, and--every bit as seriously as 9/11--the embassy attacks in Africa. As the direct target, it is a slam dunk that the US was the right authority to prosecute the war. (Another example of "right authority" would be if the entity attacked was one of our treaty partners who had subsequently invoked a mutual defense clause.)
Reasonable chance of success: Well, the facts speak for themselves. Hussein has been removed, Iraq is gradually developing effective security forces, we have been able to remove substantial troops from Saudi--facilitating ultimate withdrawal from proximity to Mecca and Medina as well as removing one of our entanglements with the House of Saud, and Iraq is acting as a "bug zapper" for sociopathic RIFs--Jordan and Syria and others are not keeping the RIFs from crossing their borders into Iraq because it's getting rid of their own most dangerous domestic trouble-makers (which long-term helps to stabilize the region). If we kill the sociopathic RIFs in Iraq, we don't have to fight those particular individuals in the US. The RIFs are going to run out of people willing to blow themselves up killing bunches of children faster than we will run out of bullets. Success is never going to be perfect, but it is likely to be reasonably effective as long as we stay on top of zapping bugs somewhere in the world. There already seems to be some success at preventing further attacks in the US. Reasonable chance of success satisfied.
So yes, under the classic criteria, I believe Iraq qualifies as a Just War.
Personally, I think we should have prosecuted the war full tilt immediately after the African embassy bombings. Messing with embassies or ambassadors has been one of the most serious acts of war since Alexander the Great and is an international standard worth upholding with extreme prejudice. (A full and sincere apology by regimes hosting Al Qaeda along with full and sincere cooperation in rooting them out would have been more than adequate to avert such a war. I don't recall us actually getting that from some of the regimes involved. Those regimes should have been our targets.)
"best use of their skills" sounds like they couldn't get any other job. I'm going to guess you didn't mean it to sound that way. I believe there is no more honorable profession than serving your country in the military, and that the decision to do so, like the decision to become a police officer, firefighter, or teacher, frequently involves great personal sacrifice in terms of working conditions and pay.
My brother-in-law David is in the 101st Air Assault Division as a 2nd Lieutenant. He is a graduate of The Citadel--I believe his major was Criminal Justice. His second choice of career after the military was the FBI.
He graduated from Ranger School, toughing it out for six months until he passed. Ranger School is amazingly demanding physically, intellectually, and psychologically. Most who attempt it don't pass. I think the fail rate is about 70% of each class. Then he went straight to Airborne school and learned to jump out of perfectly good airplanes--another demanding and dangerous school. Then he went to "rope a dope" school and learned to jump out of/operate out of helicopters.
And now, as a 2LT, he's dealing with the joys of babysitting rowdy enlisted men and dealing with all the trouble they can get themselves into. :smile:
In one of the most honorable professions there is, he's one of the elite.
He could have succeeded in a lot of things in life. He chose to take these risks to protect people like us from people like the RIFs, at risk of his own life and limb--and with the certainty of making good friends some of whom he would lose in combat, and taking responsibility for the lives of his men.
We're all very proud of him, even though we're also very worried for him. As a ranger-qualified member of the 101st, branch-detailed infantry (even though I think his permanent branch--where he'll go when he gets enough rank--is artillery or something), he is virtually guaranteed to be in the thick of combat. On the other hand, the infantry units have the lowest casualty rates because they're specifically trained to fight--so when they're in the thick of combat, they know what to do better than the REMFs in an ambushed convoy.
Whatever our family members' various religions and philosophies, our prayers and hopes go with him, as with our various friends and all the others in service in the US military and those of our allies in theater helping us.
Timoclea
