Spring Break
Debate about the Iraq war completely misses the point
Ali Mirza
Issue date: 3/4/09 Section: Commentary
What happened to Iraq? It is no mystery that coverage of the war in Iraq has diminished greatly. This is understandable, to an extent, given the economic crisis facing the nation. However, the war in Iraq is still a war. Despite rosy pictures painted by U.S. politicians and military commanders, the situation there is fragile - to say the least. Though violence has significantly declined, it is still a country under military occupation characterized by sectarian tension and a fledgling government run by warring militias.
When examining possible solutions to the situation it is important to remember one basic fact: the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression. A war of aggression, as defined by international law, is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. The late Chief Justice Robert Jackson - intimately familiar with war crimes himself, as he was the chief prosecutor of Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trial - defined such a war with chilling clarity.
"To initiate a war of aggression," he proclaimed, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Numerous polls have indicated that a vast majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country immediately. Yet this simply does not seem to enter the political or mainstream media discourse. Instead of debating the legal or ethical status of the war, politicians and pundits spend their time debating the strategic pros and cons - a prime example of the imperial mindset in Washington.
Renowned intellectual and political activist Noam Chomsky was asked in a 2007 interview for The Big Think what he thought the "best way forward in Iraq" was. "That's an interesting question," he replied, "When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the '80s, no one asked, 'What's the best way forward for them?' The best way forward was for them to get out: they had no right to be there. But when the West invades a country, all the values shift. The only question that arises is, 'What's best for the aggressors?'"
When examining possible solutions to the situation it is important to remember one basic fact: the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression. A war of aggression, as defined by international law, is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. The late Chief Justice Robert Jackson - intimately familiar with war crimes himself, as he was the chief prosecutor of Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trial - defined such a war with chilling clarity.
"To initiate a war of aggression," he proclaimed, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Numerous polls have indicated that a vast majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country immediately. Yet this simply does not seem to enter the political or mainstream media discourse. Instead of debating the legal or ethical status of the war, politicians and pundits spend their time debating the strategic pros and cons - a prime example of the imperial mindset in Washington.
Renowned intellectual and political activist Noam Chomsky was asked in a 2007 interview for The Big Think what he thought the "best way forward in Iraq" was. "That's an interesting question," he replied, "When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the '80s, no one asked, 'What's the best way forward for them?' The best way forward was for them to get out: they had no right to be there. But when the West invades a country, all the values shift. The only question that arises is, 'What's best for the aggressors?'"
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 13
Joshua H
posted 3/04/09 @ 11:22 AM EST
I believe that while this opinion piece is useful in that it contributes to the broader discourse and debate about the war in Iraq, I think that it itself misses the point. (Continued…)
Orlando
posted 3/04/09 @ 12:26 PM EST
My response: Just stop already with the complaining.
The problem that is happening is time. 2001 was 8 long years ago. I'm guessing the author was hmm between 10 and 12 years old at that time. (Continued…)
Jonnie Rocket
posted 3/04/09 @ 12:41 PM EST
Joshua,
You made a great, intelligent, and well-informed counter argument. Your points about the relativity of the term 'just', and of Chomsky being 'divorced' from reality is expected, given the author's penchant for referencing to him in every article. (Continued…)
jerry
posted 3/04/09 @ 2:11 PM EST
Joshua,
All of your counter-arguments are predicated on the assumption that "it iant gonna happen so forget it"
This is hardly an intelligent argument at all. (Continued…)
jamba juice
posted 3/05/09 @ 1:06 AM EST
Joshua,
The US supported sadaam in his massacres against shias as well as the kurds. so you're wrong in assuming the US only supported atrocities against IRan. (Continued…)
Jonnie Rocket
posted 3/20/09 @ 6:26 PM EST
Joshua,
Thanks for keeping your tone respectful and understanding. You obviously have some very well though out and intelligent things to say about this issue and I certainly respect your pragmatist approach to international affairs. (Continued…)
Post a Comment