Response to another blogger

I saw a a recent posting from AnalPhilosopher about the war in Iraq and decided to post a response to a couple of the issues he mentions. His point is this: Liberals talk all the time about the importance of preserving human life & such but they apparently forget about the brutal regime of Hussein during the two decades he was in power.

He talks about the following statement from Peter Singer: "[I]f it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 [spring 1972]: 229-43, at 231). AnalPhilosopher interprets this statement as "one is as responsible for what one allows as for what one does" and then applies that to 'corporate individuals (i.e. nations)' as well as human individuals. This means that the US, as a corporate individual, is as responsible for allowing Hussein to kill people as if it had killed all those people itself. According to this logic, he argues, liberals should have been asking for and supporting war a long time ago.

He's addressing Singer's ideas and I know nothing about Singer but there are two things I object to in AnalPhilosopher's argument: One is the double standard the surrounds coporate individualism and the second is that war is the only logical response to Hussein's dictatorship.

First: The idea that corporate individuals have the same responsibilities as humans. That's bunk. What's happened is that they've been accorded enough rights as 'citizens' to get them around some of the more odious (i.e. profit-reducing, worker-supportive) labor laws but they've not been held accountable, as citizens should be, for the resulting abuses of power. I would also argue that many, many hold MUCH more power than an individual citizen does - they affect more lives, have a greater impact on the environment, and impact more countries than most individuals ever could. In my mind, this means that they should be held to even greater standards of accountability - both for their actions and the results of those actions.

The lack of almost any sort of corporate (individual) accountability is one of the results of rampant capitalism. Valuing money over people, the environment, and the planet is not only encouraged, it is rewarded. I don't think I need to write more about this as it is a common topic addressed by many more knowledgeable than I. My point was simply that corporate 'individuals' are NOT held to the same standards of behavior as humans and his argument that 'one is as responsible for what one allows as for what one does' is NEVER applied to coporations in any other context. Applying it to the United States in the context that he is seems, to me, somewhat fallacious.

Secondly, the idea that liberals are hypocrites because they don't support the war. The only aspect of this idea I'm going to address is the fundamental belief that war (i.e. violence) is the only response to someone like Hussein. (I am on the way to becoming a peace/nonviolence scholar but I'm not quite there yet so bear with me) I agree that Hussein was a horrible, horrible man and that the Iraqi people are probably better off without him. I'm glad he's gone.

However, the reason we went to war was not to remove Hussein but to find WMD, removing Hussein was possibly part of a private agenda, but was not one of the *initial* reasons given for commencing the invasion. Fighting terrorism was also NOT one of the initial reasons given for the invasion - even though that's the ostensible reason we pounded the rubble of Afghanistan into even tinier bits of rubble. Removing Hussein and 'fighting terrorism' are two afterthought reasons, thrown to the press and the public after it was obvious no WMD were there to be found (and that Bushco wasn't going to openly acknowledge its obvious lust for Iraqi oil).

If the reason given to invade was the *true* reason we invaded (doubtful), then there were any number of nonviolent methods to that should have been used to accomplish those ends. If the (unstated)reason we were going to invade was to remove Hussein from power, why didn't we think about that so many years ago when we helped him gain power & supported him? It's true that we can't change the past, but our record with regard to Middle East politics is sorry and pathetic at best, abysmal and highly damaging at worst. I feel certain that invading an entire country should have been the last, MOST considered and LEAST desirable option. Instead, it seems to be the ONLY option that was even given a five-minute discussion.

As for terrorism (and the AnalPhilosopher's statement that he hates hypocrites), America's motto should be changed to "Do as I say, not as I do." We're the biggest terrorist nation in the world, no one else is even remotely close, and yet American military elites act as if our current stockpile of death-dealing machinery is not even close to enough to protect us. We committed as many, if not more, terrorist acts as any other terrorist organization. Is it any wonder so many other nations/organizations/etc see us as a constant threat?

Instead of flexing our own military might (a.k.a. terrorist muscle) maybe our response should have been to take a long hard look at why these people hate & fear us SO MUCH. The kind of hatred/fear that prompts people to die, taking thousands of others along with them, is not just randomly created in a day. It is developed over time, as a response to an overwhelming feeling of oppression, helplessness, and lack of viable options.

That doesn't excuse terrorism, justify it, or in any way say it is an acceptable response in any way (including American terrorism). My argument is that our response to terrorism didn't have to be Strike Back, Harder! That type of violent response only intensifies and perpetuates the cycle of violence. It gives terrorists something more to respond to (note how Al Qeda recruitment has spiked?) and even more impetus & righteousness about their cause.

As long as America continues to try and maintain its prominent role in the world through military power, terrorism against the US will continue. Military might and violent response NEVER accomplish peaceful relations and sustainable living conditions for anyone, regardless of how good the intentions may be.

So that's my response, feel free to comment back.