Was the Invasion of Iraq justified - Part Two

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.



Arab unrest and the US response

(I will be publishing many posts I had written from the previous 6 months while I was away)

“The west ravaged and destroyed Afghanistan for years “, says Brzezinski in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Libya, and Yemen and Syria are thorny issues.

It has approached the Libyan crisis well”, he had said at the time about Obama administration’s role in the conflict before the lynching of the late leader (Gaddafi) by rebels.

ON the other hand, in other conflicts, the US should not be in the forefront of the military initiative.

“There can be a slight gap between (our) words and actions”, he had said.

The West totally ignored Afghanistan (after the end of the war with Russia) and then Taliban appeared, he explains.

Concerning future relations in the region; “Iran is more hostile while Egypt will be more difficult”, he says.

Fareed Zakaria explains, we approve of the Arab uprisings, but may make things more difficult for American foreign policy issues.

The masses are more driven and less patient, explains Brzezinski.

It’s in Israel’s interest to move forward (now).

I particularly have in mind Egypt and potentially Jordan.

The New York Times “story of a showdown likely in the UN” is worrying. Will the UN vote for Palestinian independence? He asks.

“The time is against us”, he said. US voted against UN resolution despite the wording being like the American position, “conveying that it is powerless,” but it is a “redeemable” mistake, he points out.

I'm not as smart as I look

What I began to understand in Richard Falk’s article

What difference does it make if one is in Turkey, or Denmark, or Britain? Because Rushdie had British residence and citizenship he can write the Satanic Verses, but a cartoon in Denmark is somehow (even) more dangerous? I don’t understand how R. Falk comes to this conclusion? Denmark is just as much as Britain a democratic, free country. I’m not arguing for what the Danish government did or didn’t do, and the fact that they didn’t reverse their decision or discipline the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons, as Rushdie might have done(reverse course) if he could do it over. Basically there is no difference between the two countries in this. The results may have been more dangerous; more public harm could have resulted in the case of the Danish cartoons, but so was 911 the result of too much American interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not enough interference in Israel’s atrocities in Palestine. But America doesn’t effectively rethink its policies, even after Bush II.

He suggests that Danish newspaper publishers/editors have less right to publish something that could be seen widely by the public, or at least a large segment of the society, as blasphemous, than Salman Rushdie does, but why? Do newspapers have more weight, or more responsibility than individual writers? Sure. Then if newspapers in America can lie, so can newspapers everywhere. If American owned newspapers can spread the myth that Muslims can and do turn a blind eye to terrorism, then so can other - country owned newspapers. And most widely - read newspapers republished the Danish cartoons.

Also, Rushdie’s remorse could be mere tiredness at the fact that he is a virtual prisoner, with 24 hour guard, and has to be fearful of his personal safety as long as the fatwa stands. It’s not likely he would ever (have)consider(ed) self-censorship in relation to his famous book, Satanic Verses which caused a huge backlash, because it is his most famous and perhaps most-loved work, despite what Falk suggests.

It’s a political and ethical dilemma, says Falk.

What I don’t agree with

Why is turkey a notable exception? In actuality, it is always doing things against Islam; banning hijab in universities for example, in its Islamophobia like so many other European countries except it happens to have a large Muslim majority. It is a puppet regime, for now, because of secularist leanings within the administration which are too influential or powerful for greater change to have happened yet, even though the new President Gul and the Prime minister appear to be practicing Muslims. They can’t change the laws single handedly. Besides, many of Turkey’s Muslims are more secular than religious. The same can be said of Bosnia in the past, at least.

Morocco although an Arab Muslim country, is similarly backwards in its underestimation (and misunderstanding)   of Islam’s true nature and potential. This is the worldwide dilemma of Muslims in fact. Everywhere Muslims (and their religion) are prejudged; the people are seen as uneducated, backward, or aggressive. Meanwhile they must try to defend Islam and Muslims from discrimination, including discriminatory laws, and hate speech.

Too true

Falk says we can’t rely on good intentions between countries, or friendship to solve these ethical problems. The question to me is one of a return to the past; we need the same kind of honest understanding that people in the past had; for example the Prophet Muhammad made treaties with his enemies, or other tribes. In one instance the Prophet gave the new Muslim escapees back to their slave masters, but did not ask for the return of the slaves (of masters) from Medina (Prophet’s city and base) back to the Muslims (there). It seemed unfair to the companions of the Prophet and they complained. (What was the result?)In the end things turned out all right; one famous slave escaped by himself and joined two others, some of them were re - captured. Later on, the tables turned in favor of the Muslims. Despite the seemingly unfair trials and more difficulties history proved that the Prophet Muhammad was not only a military genius, but also a politically successful statesman. Read more about his successes in The Sealed Nectar and other biographies of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

Similarly, Muslim leaders if approached, might be able to arrange some kind of political deal wherein they agree to stipulations regarding actions which might seem unfair to Muslims and hurt their sentiments i.e. unfair laws on blasphemy (in theory, permit Salman Rushdie’s book, perhaps, but NOT the Danish Cartoons) but which would in return give Muslims something important back as a concession. I.e. close all the black sites like Guantanamo.

One major obstacle to such a proposal would be that Muslims wouldn’t likely be able to verify if the other side, i.e. the American army, complied with their end of the bargain. This is all a bit too far-fetched, but may be a starting point for experienced heads to think on - motivated to discuss and refine, looking at areas of contention. A fine missing ingredient is the cooperation of Muslim governments with each other. If they are not all on the same agenda, nothing can be accomplished. If Pakistanis revolt, and Saudis or Egyptians disagree then there could never be a fait accompli.

(One idea, which would give strength to Muslims and the Qur’an, is to stop publishing books with the Arabic translations, altogether. Ideally, these should not be permitted for sale to non-Muslims; a very hard task to accomplish now, considering the breadth to which the Qur’an has spread, but publishers, wholesalers, and resellers could begin to do it, within their own spheres of influence. Maybe the Arabic Qur’an should only be permitted online (audio files), or in Masajid (Muslim houses of Worship), and Islamic study circles, or Muslim - only Islamic University libraries.)

Rome was once a powerful country, and as prophesied, the heads of Rome would continue to grow back even after cut off. The Romans (i.e. they had descendents who are similar in looks and beliefs) of today are still as contentious as they were in the early days of Islam, but their plots are not undefeatable, nor are their armies’ strength permanent forever.