Why we fight ....

[chuckbrown 0]

Sorry to post such a long article, but this appeared in today's WSJ, and I thought it would be good to share with my DZ.com bretheren. It's at Opinionjournal.com (a free site). In short, a Nobel Peace laureate makes the case for the US invasion of Iraq.
__________________________________________________

Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.

BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.

No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.

As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.


So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.

Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.

Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.

If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.

Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.

The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.

Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.


In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation.

_________________________________________________

You may now critique and discuss this piece.

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting article. Boortz references him today in his notes.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Guest]

I think people who are critical of US policy (but in some cases, rightly so) will find it difficult to dismiss this man's remarks as those of a right-wing warmonger, or tie in the WMDs, US responsibility for Saddam (who after all, had plenty of help from all over, not just us. His military structure was built almost entirely upon USSR/Warsaw Pact material and doctrine), or any of the other criticisms leveled at the US.

However, there are those who will find a way to attack this man's character, or otherwise marginalize him. So it goes.

BTW - Protestors in Seattle are now openly showing their support for the terrorists in Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're sending hate-mail to the families of service personnel killed in action.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

However, there are those who will find a way to attack this man's character, or otherwise marginalize him. So it goes.

BTW - Protestors in Seattle are now openly showing their support for the terrorists in Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're sending hate-mail to the families of service personnel killed in action.

mh

.

I thought it was a very thoughtful article. I'm surprised it's generated no negative comments so far from the usual suspects.

As for the Seattle crew, they're just mad they missed the 60s.

[Trent 0]

So no response or thoughts from the usual suspects on this essay?

Oh, hello again!

[Guest]

Quote

As for the Seattle crew, they're just mad they missed the 60s.

hehehe - you do see a lot of tie-dyes, dreadlocks and bongos.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[livendive 8]

Quote

So no response or thoughts from the usual suspects on this essay?

I don't know if I'm one of the "usual suspects", but I thought it was a reasonably stated argument if one ignores all the supposition. In some of those cases, I agreed with the author, in others I disagree, and in some I can neither agree nor disagree because I have insufficient information to form an opinion. As Mr. Ramos-Horta is not here to defend himself and the questionable statements are of the "reasonable persons may disagree" sort, I saw no reason to elaborate.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

I don't know if I'm one of the "usual suspects", but I thought it was a reasonably stated argument if one ignores all the supposition. In some of those cases, I agreed with the author, in others I disagree, and in some I can neither agree nor disagree because I have insufficient information to form an opinion. As Mr. Ramos-Horta is not here to defend himself and the questionable statements are of the "reasonable persons may disagree" sort, I saw no reason to elaborate.

Blues,
Dave

Finally, some critique and discussion. Not quite the "Quote, Reply, Quote, Reply" I'm used to but it's a start ...

[billvon 3,120]

An interesting article. I disagree with the idea that we have the moral imperative to invade the countries of evil leaders, but I do agree that we have to put in the effort to rebuild Iraq as a free society - even if their idea of freedom is different than ours. I also agree that the UN will be a critical force in the reconstruction of Iraq, and we should do everything we can to include them in the process.

[TypicalFish 0]

Trent >



Interesting article, and I think a good read no matter where you fall on the issue.

I think you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to say that Iraq is not better off with Hussein gone; or to argue the basic concepts of freedom vs. tyranny. Or, quite frankly, even to effectively argue that we do not need to continue to be involved now that we are there. I read most of the political/war threads on the board, and the underlying tone that I get from them is not so much a disagreement that the Iraqis are better off, but a disgust with the way that we ended up there.

"It's all about WMD's" "Oops, none there" "It's all about the war terrorism" "Oops, the connection between Hussien and AQ is more tenuous than we thought" "Well, it's all about human rights violations" "Photos at 10:00, stay tuned". (The last one was said somewhat tongue in cheek).

It seems that the justification for the war has become a moving target, and I think that is frustrating for alot of people and makes them question the integrity of the original effort. That seems to be where (again, just in my opinion) most of the debate seems to lie.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[livendive 8]

Quote

Finally, some critique and discussion. Not quite the "Quote, Reply, Quote, Reply" I'm used to but it's a start ...

OK, a little more definitive, just the first two paragraphs:

"The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats"
Well, that and/or decided fighting the war was not in their best interest

and withdrawn its troops from Iraq.
Fact...sort of. I believe there are still some Spanish troops in Iraq, but I'll concede the point they are slated to return home.

So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic.
I do not know if Honduras and/or the Dominican Republic have withdrawn their support, and if they have I won't presume to know their reasons.

They are unlikely to be the last.
I agree they are not likely to be the last countries to pull their troops out of Iraq

With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.
Hubris

No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win.
Supposition.

They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.
Presumptuous. While it may be true in some cases, I do not know how the author can assume to know how a country will "spin" their withdrawal nor what conclusions extremists will draw from such moves. Example: If Poland were tomorrow declare that they no longer wish to team with a country who treated their prisoners the way they're seeing on television and are therefore withdrawing their troops, how do the terrorists claim that victory? The US did it to itself.

Anyhow, I thought the article was full of a lot of assumptions. While nicely packaged, it was still fundamentally an opinion piece terribly short on facts.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[markd_nscr986 0]

***BTW - Protestors in Seattle are now openly showing their support for the terrorists in Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're sending hate-mail to the families of service personnel killed in action.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

An interesting article. I disagree with the idea that we have the moral imperative to invade the countries of evil leaders, ....

So, by that standard, you were against the Balkans, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Germany?

edit to correct myself.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Darius11 12]

Very Nicely written.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[PhillyKev 0]

I don't think anyone here has said that it is not a good thing for Iraq that Hussein was removed from power. But, is it the best thing for the US, will it reduce terrorism, was it worth the deaths of our soldiers and their civilians?

Bottom line, Saddam gone = good.
US invasion of Iraq = bad.

I don't believe the benefit outweighs the cost.

[kallend 2,150]

I wonder what Nobel Peace laureate Yasser Arafat thinks about it.

(Don't they give Peace Prizes to the strangest people).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I wonder what Nobel Peace laureate Yasser Arafat thinks about it.

(Don't they give Peace Prizes to the strangest people).

LOL...shit, forgot about that. I NEVER type LOL, except in this case, I literally did.

[Guest]

Quote

An interesting article. I disagree with the idea that we have the moral imperative to invade the countries of evil leaders, but I do agree that we have to put in the effort to rebuild Iraq as a free society - even if their idea of freedom is different than ours. I also agree that the UN will be a critical force in the reconstruction of Iraq, and we should do everything we can to include them in the process.

Hear, hear. We have an obligation to rebuild Iraq. However we cannot possibly make it into a "Mini-Me", and anyone who thinks we can is foolish.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,120]

>So, by that standard, you were against the Balkans, Grenada,
>Panama, Afghanistan and Germany?

Afghanistan and Germany - not at all. We have every right to fight back when attacked; it is the reason we have a military in the first place. The other actions you mentioned were questionable in that light.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>So, by that standard, you were against the Balkans, Grenada,
>Panama, Afghanistan and Germany?

Afghanistan and Germany - not at all. We have every right to fight back when attacked; it is the reason we have a military in the first place. The other actions you mentioned were questionable in that light.

The Muslims in the Balkans would probably take issue with that line of thinking, as would people that saw the sh*t fly in Grenada.

What about our attempt in Somalia? What about Liberia?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

I wonder what Nobel Peace laureate Yasser Arafat thinks about it.

(Don't they give Peace Prizes to the strangest people).

Touche Kallend. Touche.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Hey Trent, usual suspect checking in.
"The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq."
I find this statement a little inaccurate, and even misleading, the new Socialist government had made the commitment to withdraw troops from the coalition prior to the bombings in Madrid. It was clearly stated in their manifesto, and was designed to garner votes from those opposed to the (in Europe, very unpopular) invasion/liberation of Iraq. Calling them quitters is basically inaccurate, they (the new Socialist government) are honouring their pre-election promises.

So apart from the opening statement being inaccurate he says a lot of things I agree with.
eg:-
"Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval."
"NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny."
"Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. ....snip.... The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists."

Oh one other thing Trent, congratulations, good show on the big way.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson