SAVING THE WORLD: Where Do We Draw The Line?
Should Americans continue to try to save the world? If so, it seems pretty obvious that we can’t save it all. And if that is true, how do we pick and choose? Where do we draw the line? And the big question: Is the life of one American soldier worth the lives of the entire population of any Stone Age country? In the wake of the apparent meltdown of government military forces in Iraq, these questions seem appropriate and timely. Since we invaded that country in 2003 to save the people from an evil regime (and to search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction), more than 4000 American soldiers have been killed and thousands more injured, many with pieces of their bodies blown off. The financial investment so far has been estimated at more than $ 1 trillion.
While most of our soldiers were fighting, others were training and equipping Iraqi police and military forces to take over the protection of their country in preparation for the day when the Americans and our allies would pull out and go home. Well, that point came a couple of years ago– and the insurgents are now trying to again take over the country. But that was predicted. And you would think that, after all these years, the American-trained Iraqi forces would be one of the toughest and best equipped military forces on the face of the Earth. But apparently, they are not. According to press reports, as the insurgents march across the country toward Baghdad, the Iraqi soldiers are dropping their weapons and running. According to other reports, some Iraqi soldiers are wearing civilian clothes under their uniforms in case they need to quickly blend into the civilian population to escape.
So, what to do, what to do? Send troops back in to again fight off the insurgents? Or just stand back and watch the insurgents again take over and subjugate the population– and, possibly establish a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S. homeland? How heartless can we be to just stand back and watch the insurgents again brutalize the Iraqi people– especially women? But, I’m sorry, let me again repeat the big question: Is the life of even one American soldier worth trying to save these people– or, frankly, any other people?
But isolationism is a cruel policy. And probably not practical. What if the voices of the American isolationists had won out before World War II? So . . . if we decide that it is the “American Way” to continue to try to save the world, how do we pick and choose who to try to save? Where do we draw the line? And who will be making those decisions? I can tell you this: If I were making the decisions and I had to decide to spend more blood and treasure to try, again, to save the Iraqi people– or to try to rescue those 200 little girls kidnapped by terrorists in Nigeria, I would try to save the little girls. I would also spend a few of those “save the world” dollars to try to solve some of our problems at home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis Reeves Cooper, Ph.D
Dennis Reeves Cooper founded Key West The Newspaper in 1994 and was editor and publisher for 18 years before he retired in 2012.
Mmmmm…Your premise that W. and company took us into the Iraq quagmire to “Save the World” and rid Iraq of insurgents is kinda off the mark. You are correct about the non-existent WMD’s, the first “reason” for invading Iraq. When no WMD’s were located the “reason” was to rid the world of the evil dictator (that we USA/CIA installed) Saddam Husein and when that mission was accomplished we stayed for another decade to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. What a sick sad joke. There were no insurgents before we went there. Saddam, for all his evilness, had the various tribal/religious factions in check. Our air force had Saddam in check with the no-fy zone. Not a perfect set up, but certainly less costly in lives lost and ruined then the cock-up the Bush administration.
We did not bring anything to Iraq except ruination and death and yet we still delude ourselves that we are the good guys with noble intentions.
If it were not for oil we wouldn’t be giving these regions a second look. It’s not about saving the world, it’s about saving Exxon/Mobil’s and Chevron’s bacon.
Mr. Cooper it seems, lives in an alternate reality, as do most people, fueled by cognitive dissonance. to put it more simply, they live in a “matrix” that at once allows them to exist in a fictional reality created for them that simply does not exist, but yet lies underneath an entirely different paradigm. They simply cannot recognize a world where the American political and economic construct is anything but a benevolent patriarchy destined to rein its munificence on an ever recalcitrant, venerate world. They cannot countenance the reality that the United States government is not a government at all, but the hired muscle of a banking/corporate oligarchy whose interests do not align with any sense of decency or morality.
Tell me Mr. Cooper, how are these “stone age” people to acquire the intercontinental capacity to threaten our precious homeland? Do they posses a super-duper-laser-guided slingshot??
Perhaps the greatest breakdown in Mr. Coopers thought process is the inference that American life is more valuable than others. This position is not tenable, and completely abhorrent to any humanistic sensibility. For if Mr. Cooper believes in the relative value between nationalities, he also believes in the relative value of races.
Care to defend that, Mr. Cooper?
Back in the fall of 2002, as I recall, the Key West City Commission, after a bitter debate from the audience and on the dais, by a 4-3 vote passed a resolution that Key West, as a city, opposed USA invading Iraq without UN agreement and participation. Before casting the deciding vote, then Mayor Jimmy Weekly said he could not support another American war over oil. As I recall, in the next edition of Key West the Newspaper, its Publisher/Editor Dennis Reeves Cooper blasted the resolution for even being on the city commission agenda, and blasted the outcome. I knew on 9/11 that the attack was bait, a trap, and I knew the worst response America could make was invade an Islamic country. It later figured G.W. War, Inc. would invade Afghanistan, where it was said Osama bin Laden was; and I did not expect an invasion of Iraq, which was not being blamed for the 9/11 attack. The invasion of Afghanistan turned out poorly, too, for the US. Neither war, in my opinion, was worth one dead, wounded and/or battleshocked American soldier. Nor worth the death, wounding or battleshocking of one Iraqi or Afghan soldier or civilian. It will take more than argument, I think, for Americans who supported those wars to admit to themselves that those wars were bad ideas from the get go. America has all she can say grace over within her own borders. On that I agree with Dennis.
And, I imagine 200 little girls captured by terrorists would very much like to be rescued by American soldiers, or by anyone; and that might please God a great deal more than USA’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Woe be unto anyone who harms a single hair on the head of a child. President Obama’s drone strikes, which injured and killed civilians, including children, come to mind. I think it will take more than arguing, or even just discussion, for real change to occur in America and on this world. I think it will take a Divine Intervention, which is seen for what it is, or is felt for what it is. That’s what I was asked in my sleep for pray for 2 nights before 9/11. I awoke and prayed for a Divine Intervention for all of humanity. Around Thanksgiving 2011, I was asked to make a prayer for a Divine Intervention of the Feminine into USA. I made that prayer, too. I cannot say what such Interventions might look like, or feel like. Or how long they might take to be implemented. USA could use a lot less testosterone drive, though, and a great deal more estrogen, abroad and in America.