Wow, just the title and I already know I'm stepping on some serious toes. Please, just bear with me a little, take in my ideas, and hopefully you'll see that I'm not quite the warmonger I'm sure you've assumed I am.
Obviously the question I'm trying to tackle here is: Under what circumstances is war justified? Simplified thusly, the answer is easy. I take it from the Book of Mormon: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."[Alma 43:46] The principle is clearly taught and widely recognized by most, violence is justified when necessary for self defence. This goes for large states, governments, and organizations. One must be attacked before having legitimate reason for striking back. Thusly, addressing the current war in which the United States is involved, the "Preemptive Strike" is not justifiable. That's right, I want to go on record that I don't believe that a preemptive strike, an attack for the purpose of preventing one, is a valid reason for going to war. Moreover, therefore, that the Iraq war's declaration is justifiable.
Unfortunately, though, there is a however. However, I believe at least some deal of good has come, or at the very least could have had the political and sociological ends been pursued like they should have. A brutal dictator was overthrown and a peolple freed from his tyranny and torture. Remember those first days of whatever the P.R. label for this war is now? Iraqis celbrating in the street, hitting posters of Hussain with their shoes, which gesture as a military interrogation specialist our family knows says is one of such disdain, hatred, and malice that it's akin to saying, "if you ever are able to obtain the resources and opportunity, please hunt down and kill me and my family." That same specialist said that when some Iraqis were questioned upon being released to go back home they broke into tears and were overjoyed, because they were used to the fact being that if you were taken for questioning, you would never be seen again. Did this atmosphere last? Sadly, it seems not to. Perhaps it's just hopeful on my part, but I think that if the Iraqi democracy agenda had been pursued as hard as either candidate's campaign it might have.
The point I've wanted to make here is thus: Was the war justified? No. Was the war evil? No. Or, at the very least it's certainly on a level higher than the parade of sorrows and atrocities that folk like Micheal Moore would have you believe it is. And I think war in general must be recognized for the good that it brings. Of course the suffering brought on by the flood of violence which sweeps a land called, "combat zone" during a war is terrible. But the destruction of Nazis, unjust monarchs, or terrorists (I want to make sure it's pointed out I mean those who'll kill anyone regardless of...well anything but most importantly the worth of human life) brought forth through that sadness is important.
So, I supppose maybe I should sum up my opinion on the Iraq war, as that's where all the ire tends to lie. I think we should never have gone there. I think the reason for the war was not justifiable-though I believe Saddam's threat of W.M.D.'s was real, if only like someone brandishing a gun in your face is real even if it turns out the weapon wasn't loaded. I think the efforts going on now, though, are at least understandable and maybe honorable. And perhaps what I really want to say is just that the best way to honor those soldiers who fight on our country's behalf isn't to show disdain for the venture they're currently engaged in and wish it over, but to hope that the great deal of good which is possible does come from it, and a people learn to live for themselves instead of in fear of a soul crushing government.
War is hell, but as Dante had to pass through hell on his way to heaven, so must some communities pass through times of war to become places where goodness and happiness can abound.
