| |
|
Thanks, Fly Boy, for starting this off.
Wars have been fought brutally and efficiently by people who considered their acts to be acts of love. In fact, some of the kids in Iraq right now are convinced this is the case. Some of those folks in Iraq right now are oppressors through-and-through, however -- particularly those statesmen sitting comfortable inside the 'Green Zone' wearing safari hats and carrying pistols at their hips. Both sides adopt much of the same rhetoric and a similar stance, obviously. Saving the world from evil and all.
It is certainly worth noting, however, that those with the greater amount of privilege tend to do the greater amount of harm and tend to be less self-aware. I have no doubt that most of the movers and shakers there have drunken themselves sick on their own self-righteous rhetoric, but I don't think the U.S. establishment would've pursued it with so much determination had it not been a last ditch effort to retain U.S. hegemony. They didn't do it to stock up on crude oil, they did it because OPEC was poised to begin trading in euros, and the PNAC thinkers require a massive amount of economic control to maintain the military machinery their agenda relies on. The invasion of Iraq was an attempt to solidify the U.S. economy in preparation for more aggressive military action throughout the Middle East.
To be frank, I've noticed the most vocal proponents of these activities rarely defend their viewpoints with a sense of integrity in open debate. Propaganda and misdirection are their tools of choice, and this tells much as to their motivation, unconscious or no. They may think themselves the good guys in some small way -- slaughtering potential terrorists and toppling dictatorial regimes to protect what they see as the light tower of "freedom". But many of them know they are protecting their privilege first and foremost, for they cling to few pretensions regarding engendering democracy by force. If this wasn't the case, you'de see more staunch argument, more honesty, less maneuvering towards crushing dissent.
They believe good can only be wrought by their American hands, and so self interest is a huge part of their philosophy. PNAC takes this position very seriously. But this philosophy is not just wrong -- it's passionately selfish, and advances a posit that all means are justified by entirely hypothetical ends: 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians are justified by the mere potential of an eventual democracy in Iraq.
So this being a very rough sketch of our "they" in this sense, we have the core question -- are we trying to rescue these people from selfishness and somewhat voluntary delusion, or are we trying to stop them from bringing havoc?
I personally believe the greater good here is to prevent them from causing further harm. We cannot save them from themselves, but we can work to save others from them. Only when deprived of the rewards they receive and the means to prosecute their agenda are they likely to reconsider their position. Of course, my comments aren't geared towards your (assuming you're reading from the U.S. in this case) Republican neighbors, but they do apply. Whether or not they realize it, they are voting to protect their privilege -- not to "bring oppressed people freedom", not to "keep the world safe". It doesn't really matter what they say they believe, it matters what they do. Bush has convinced the U.S. and to an extent the governments of the Western world that our privilege is at stake, and many are motivated to defend that privilege. They are in the wrong, and when their actions result in the shedding of innocent blood, they should absolutely be stopped.
To get their fucking attention, and to tell them that we won't let this be profitable for them, to set the stage such that they will only further risk their privilege by pursuing this course of action, is I believe an admirable end. Our "us" is not a flawless, shining example of good, and our "them" is not pure evil -- but our "us" is more interested in saving innocent lives right now, and our "them" is more interested in protecting their abstract interests at the cost of innocent life. And it certainly does not seem that "they" will be convinced by words alone. |
|
|
