Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!masala!olsen
From: olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Peace?  Yes, fight for peace, among other things.
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.060633.11270@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 91 06:06:33 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu>
Sender: daemon@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Lucifer Maleficius)
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Lines: 67

In article <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) writes:

>Peace ?  This conflict has nothing to do with peace. This conflict
>exists for three reasons:
  
>     1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. 
>     2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess
>     3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. 
>[Matthew later asserts his belief that these are the *only* reasons for
>this conflict, the other supposed reasons being mere rationalizations.]

The three reasons Matthew gives are important, but he is mistaken in
thinking that these are the only reasons.  Reasons for war fall into two
categories, and Matthew errs in considering only one of them.

In considering the initiation of a major war, a democratic country
must answer two questions:

- Is the war just?  (Would it be morally right for someone to
  fight this war?)

  In order to acquire and maintain the necessary public support for a
  major war, the people of the country must perceive the war to be just.
  (For short conflicts like the invasion of Grenada, this is less
  important, since public support isn't vital.)  If you doubt that
  the immorality of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was important to the
  US entry into the war, consider the following hypothetical:

    Suppose that Kuwait had voluntarily agreed to be annexed by Iraq.
    All of the amoral geo-political war reasons that apply to the
    current conflict would apply in this case too, but it would be
    completely impossible for George Bush to get the requisite national and
    international support for an aggressive war against the hypothetical
    Iraq-Kuwait, and the war would therefore not occur.

  The illegality of the Iraqi invasion (the only difference between the
  hypothetical case and the actual case) is therefore one reason for the war.

If the first question is answered 'yes', we must ask the second:

- Is the war wise?  (Is it advisable for _us_ to fight this war?)

  Even if a war is seen to be just, often it will not be wise to fight it.
  This hinges on the likely cost (human and material) of the war, and its
  likely benefits.  Matthew's three reasons would enter into this calculation.
  States never fight wars unless they see it to be in their own self-interest.

This step causes the 'inconsistency' that antiwar people see in our use of
force.  But why must we be consistent?  No state is the 'World's Policeman',
dedicated to upholding international law.  The states in the Gulf war
situation are more like private citizens seeing a friend attacked by a
mugger: they can fight for their friend if they wish, but they are not
obliged to do so.  The 'consistency' argument would say that unless you
undertake to thwart every mugging anywhere, it is immoral for you to defend
your friend against a mugger.  The 'consistency' antiwar argument is absurd.

In sum, this war, as all wars, is being fought to further the national
self-interest of the belligerents, but it is also being fought because of
the Iraqi breach of international law.

>Fight for Peace? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak
>statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Bliss

Matthew's statement is false.  There is a legitimate line of reasoning to
the effect that fighting a war now may prevent larger wars in the future.
One may dispute the validity of that line of reasoning, but to dismiss it as
mere doublespeak is intellectually dishonest.