Is it Justifiable to Invade a Sovereign State?
Was the Invasion of Iraq justified?
What about sanctions? What about the War?
Is it justified to kill innocents, to try to bring down a dictator?
These are questions many people don’t think of, except in the most general terms; they don’t want to think about the fact their government justifies torture, or the murder of innocent children and babies. These are questions which everyone wrestles with, who has some stake in the future of America.
Islam doesn’t permit war crimes, in general. But there are also specific sayings of Mohammed bin Abdullah, pbuh, that specifically warn Muslim soldiers not to kill women and children, rabbis or monks, or old men who do not participate in fighting. When it happened that some women or children were killed, he said, “They are with them.” This suggests that in some cases, when a situation is not the most ideal, that there might be some civilian casualties. That is a far cry from justifying purposeful targeting or otherwise blatant human rights violations. Genocide is not permitted in Islam, nor is rape or pillage.
On the other hand, the hadith that the holy Prophet killed some pagan woman while she was breastfeeding is not something I am familiar with, and can’t comment on that. It isn’t surprising that Christians against Islam preach such things in the open and say this is why Islam is dangerous, and so on. But from the teachings I have I don’t believe that such a thing likely ever happened, and probably the hadith/report is not trustworthy, no matter which hadith scholar reported it, or had it under some authority to include in his hadiths collection. Not all the hadiths in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim are in fact “sahih”. Sahih suggests that the hadiths are trustworthy, but many weak or abrogated (daif, or mursal) sayings are included in the collections, these two in particular I mention because they are the most authentic writings after the Quran. Of course, they do not at all come close to the Authenticity or authorship of the Holy Book, but they are often referenced by Muslims, particularly scholars and students of Islam.
When a country today invades another, especially when America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost is immeasurably high in terms of lives and money. The fact that Bush waited for Senate approval before invading shows that he knows it is wise to have the backing of a majority of the government or the most important peoples’ approval, as well as a big percentage of the public’s approval going into a war, or else he wouldn’t have done it. He didn’t need all of the people to support the war, of course, and eventually when Americans got tired of the war, or decided that they didn’t agree with it, more and more, then that led to their questioning of the real motives of the Bush administration. But it is correct to say that the war was not only orchestrated by Bush’s administration or a few important or influential people at the top, but also it was agreed that once they were in Iraq or Afghanistan they wouldn’t be leaving for a long time. It’s incredibly naïve to believe that the government thought they would just go in and out as quickly as possible. That can’t be true, because the cost of deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere overseas) is so great; the American government is in debt, partly as a result of the wars it has fought. The government realizes and so do many of its people that they have to recover their losses, and even start to benefit from their overseas exploits. If they don’t their economy is destined to spiral downward for the unforeseeable future. That appears to be happening all over the country, in many parts, but of course the leadership can take a little belt tightening in stride, it is the poor and middle class who take the brunt of suffering when a deep recession happens. In fact when they are in a depression, the government leaders likely will run for the hills, and it appears that may be what’s happening already, since the Gulf Wars. In fact, cushioning their politicians in built into the system, with the large sums of money they earn, which many say is deserved, but even after they leave office, they are provided for the rest of their natural lives, unlike the rest of the population who must take their chances with whatever they can siphon away for their meager retirement funds, on average not even a tenth of what the rich will comfortably retire on.
For strategic and economic reasons, the Americans are not going to leave Iraq, or Afghanistan, probably any time in the near future. They may redeploy soldiers to other places, but part of the incentive for going to war is economic. For the troops their reasons for joining the army or military, also always include economic incentives; a desire to have steady employment and often the wish to benefit from other programs. While many believe their government is doing the right thing, they also want to know that their families will be taken care of if they don’t come home. Unfortunately for them, the truth of the matter is, many ‘army families’ are suffering and cannot even live without food stamps or charity. The administration’s quagmire is Iraq; it has been none too easy for soldiers and their families to hunker down as they are commanded (as good foot soldiers) literally in fact; but they are the pawns in the big “game” of Middle East Monopoly; it would be easier if they didn’t also have the quagmire of their own disillusionment with the reality of politics and their personal responsibility in some cases for their role in the seedier side of the war on terror, strategies which have placed many of them in the distasteful role of a greasy, small town jailer, which is how many Muslims and Arabs now see them. The animosity has become up close and personal, which is the drawback to controlling people on the ground when you occupy someone else’s country, cities and streets.
Especially in a large and cavernous country like Afghanistan, there is hardly another option to old fashioned hand to hand combat, or house to house searches. Hence, the necessity of the techno savvy administration’s use of unmanned drones, which is much more sanitized and impersonal, meaning the war in Afghanistan and neighboring countries (possibly comfortably settling into Pakistan as well) will be the techno**(meets) Sgt. Slaughter/or/Big Boss Man vs. Chemical Ali* (meets) Iron Sheikh (hometown, Tehran) version of a “Mexican standoff”***.
Note: Readers might not be aware that pro wrestlers often are not what they appear; American wrestler was Muhamed Hasan, while Iron Sheikh, now Col Mustafa, is actually Iranian, so I think it’s okay for me to pit an Iranian (aka) Arab Sheikh/Col against an American (Sgt. Slaughter) even if it isn’t representative of the statistical/political reality.
*Chemical Ali was of course a terrorist, the brother of Saddam Hussein, so not from Afghanistan or Pakistan, either. I just thought if Iron Sheikh wanted someone on his side, maybe someone who could get chemical weapons might prove useful against the enemy. Not that I’d endorse anything like that.
**Techno (e.g. techno pop) is music, which Americans like. But I wasn’t being funny; Techno means technology here, as in weapons technology (e.g. techno weapon)
A ***Mexican standoff historically, means you have three or more groups with opposing interests with the other groups, so all of them have their guns trained on everyone else. It isn’t meant here as any kind of racial slur. I’m all for a good “shoot out”, at least in the movies.
