There was a political cartoon in my local paper in which Cathy Sheenan has a sign asking why her son died, and Uncle Sam replies (to her "I didn't think of that") to allow the Iraqi people to do the same thing she is doing. The implication being that we went over there for freedom, including to allow the people there to have the right to protest. My cynical thought was that the reason apparently was so that thousands of Iraqi moms can cry out to President Bush "what is the noble cause that justified the death of my son?"
A big "fu" btw to the NY Daily News editorial board that felt it necessary to smear her by apparently the worse epithet available, namely comparing her statements to Michael Moore. No, Moore is a fathead who makes a pest out of himself for purposes of political theater that do turn out to be more right than wrong most of the time. This mom is a regular sort who is mourning the death of her son and believes he died in the promotion of a corrupt cause. As noted by the editorial, some other moms of those killed in this conflict disagree. But, both sides are worthy of our respect. Respect the likes of the editorial board (the paper overall fairly liberal) just cannot bring themselves truly to offer.
A progressive leaning blog included a discussion of a piece in defense of humanitarian imperialism (the white man's burden philosophy, cynically put) in connection to the Iraqi War. In part, it argues that humanitarian reasons were offered before the war began, so it is not wrong to argue that these factored into the mix. I replied that the actual authorization* focused on other threats, namely WMDs, so general humanitarian sentiment was somewhat besides the point. Furthermore, it was unclear to me how we have the authority to enforce UN resolutions in ways the actual UN opposed.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait
Someone accused me of revisionist history because humanitarian concerns were referenced in the "whereas" clauses in part as a sort of general threat to our security. But, the point was a minor blow to my argument. It can be said that the "threat" the actual authorization clauses dealt with was phrased in a vague enough way that some argument can be made that humanitarian concerns factored in. You know, if you ignore the actual events as well as the main content of the resolution.
Whereas clauses are horatory, but might provide insight to the actual authorization. But, even the clause pointed out to me focused as much on Iraqi handling our own forces and Kuwaiti property (yeah, that's why we fought -- property disputes) than treatment of its own citizens. And, spoke of working "with" the U.N., not against the Security Council's own judgments.
Seriously, the "threat" was weapons and Iraq's alleged failure to properly supply inspections and the possibility (reaffirmed by Powell's now infamous U.N. show and tell) they had WMDs. The whereas clauses are primarily concerned with such matters, not spelling out humanitarian offenses or Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow war widows to ask him why their sons died fighting Iran or the U.S. In fact, as another reply noted, (1) the situation there in 2002 was better than some other trouble spots and (2) our invasion in various respects was not the best way to deal with such concerns, especially if we take a worldwide approach to the problem.
Recently, some compared the NARAL ad to the Swift Boat Vets campaign against Kerry, raising once more the debate over its airing. This debate over actual reason behind the war is about as tedious. One last thing. The essay suggested not being totally forthright about one's humanitarian aims might be legitimate if done for a good cause. This tends to be a bad policy, even if we are supposed to accept misleading rationales for war, since hey, "they" know better than us easily fooled dweebs anyway.
---
* The ultimate flaw in the authorization was that the President was given broad discretion to decide when force was necessary within broad contours that quite arguably was not even met. Our Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war ... if they can just delegate it away, what's the point?