Just and Holy Principles

Courtesy: cbc.ca

U.S. military officers in Iraq have recently claimed that Iraqi insurgents have been using Iranian weapons against American troops. President Bush has ordered two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf (read story). In 2002, Bush called Iran, North Korea and Iraq an “axis of evil” that threatens world peace.

Iran’s Nuclear History
On April 11, 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium. He assured the international community that Iranian efforts were strictly for civil power purposes and not for weapons; “our nation is a peaceful nation,” he declared. But Iran’s problematic past might lead the astute student of international relations to think otherwise.

In his book Tehran Rising (see book), Ilan Berman outlines Iran’s expanding nuclear program that now boasts at least eighteen nuclear reactor, research, and weapons facilities. Russia helped Iran start its atomic program, China has sustained it, and N. Korea and Pakistan have assisted it.

With Iraq in ruins, Iran has become the dominant power in the Middle East. It is strategically and quietly expanding its influence across the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia. Iran actively supports numerous terrorist organizations including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Iranian leaders feel the need to protect Iran from an American attempt to topple its regime and from the United Kingdom, France, and Israel who have nuclear weapons.

Iran’s Ideological Quest
Alarmingly, Iran’s long-term commitment to “accomplishing an ideological mission, that is, the Jihad for the sake of God, as well as for struggling to open the way for the sovereignty of the Word of God throughout the world” is its most propelling justification for seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian ayatollahs have declared, “Death to the Great Satan, America.” And Iran’s current president Mahmoud Admadinejad has called Israel a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth” (read article). Should the we invade Iran? Should we preemptively destroy its nuclear facilities?

My thoughts: what to do about Iran?
I’m not convinced that Iran would ever attack us with a nuclear weapon. Our massive nuclear force could obliterate all of Iran in minutes. Iran has 2 options: 1) send seemingly “unaffiliated” terrorists to attack us or 2) continue to spread its influence in the Middle-East and advance nuclear weapons programs with the goal of carrying out a large-scale attack on U.S. soil in the distant future. Option 1 is likely, option 2 is highly unlikely given America’s proportionally massive economic and military strength. Iran would have to collaborate with rising powers like China, Russia, and Pakistan to have any chance against us.

If you see Iran as an imminent threat and believe the U.S. should invade, then we have two major problems to consider, one short- and one long-term. We are currently employing most of our military resources in Iraq. We have neither the military force nor the funding necessary to invade Iran. Without re-instating the draft or dramatically raising taxes, our efforts are limited.

Also, modern America lacks sufficient political will to endure long, costly wars, (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), which weakness is inherent in all democracies. For now, we must wait on Iran. We must remain in Iraq until it is a stable, liberal democracy. In the meantime, we must be prepared to defend our lives, families, religion, and country against any domestic or foreign aggression on our homeland.

What do you think?

Take the poll!

(To read a paper I just wrote on this topic click here)

Source: guardian.co.uk

October was the deadliest month in Iraq since the war began. The Pentagon recently proposed three options for U.S. troops in Iraq (read article):

1) Go big. Add more troops to defeat the insurgents and stabilize Iraq
2) Go long. Gradually reduce troop levels but expect a longer stay
3) Go home. Pull out all troops shortly

Which strategy should we pursue?

Going Big

Going big will be difficult. We’ve had troops in Iraq for over three years now; many have already returned for additional tours of duty and are weary. The only way to dramatically increase troop levels is to re-instate the draft, but doing so would be politically unwise for either party. While going big would be nice, our current lack of resources makes it impossible.

Going Home

Going home immediately would be irresponsible. If U.S. troops leave, then a civil war is inevitable, and Iraq may end up worse off than they were with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical government. Whether going into Iraq was the best choice or not, we now have a responsibility to remain in Iraq until we help stabilize it; otherwise, we’ll be like a lifeguard that saves a little girl from a blood thirsty shark but then leaves her alone to swim back to shore through the same shark-infested waters.

Going Long

Going long is, unfortunately, the best option. We must stay as long as needed to secure stability. However, if we honestly believe that now, or in two or three years, that we can no longer provide stability and training that will benefit Iraqis, then maybe we should begin a phased pull-out. I think the key is to get other countries like Iran and Syria to help out in Iraq and to somehow convince the different parties and sects in Iraq to work out a compromise together. We can only try to provide stability while they work out their issues amongst themselves.

What do you think?

Source: www.september11news.com

Principles: Individual Liberty

Article: USA Today: Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-al-Qaeda link

Article Summary: A recent Senate intelligence report has found that Saddam Hussein had no ties with al-Qaeda before the war in Iraq. The committe says that an October 2005 CIA assessment reported no link between the two, but that the Bush administration pressured CIA Director George Tenet into backing its justification for the war in Iraq. Democrats support the findings and continue to accuse Bush of misleading the nation into war. Meanwhile, Republicans assert that the report reveals no new intelligence and that Democrats are simply seeking political gain shortly before the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

My Thoughts: As one of my professors often says, let’s begin with an extremely “non-controversial issue”: the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq. Today is the 5th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. We honor the innocent people who lost their lives in those attacks and hope no catastrophes of such magnitude devastate our nation ever again.

War History

As early as Jan. 2002, President Bush declared that a link existed between Iraq and terrorist groups (read more) and that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). On Oct. 7, 2002, he claimed that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists Abu Nadal, Abu Abass, and al-Qaeda (read more). In that same speech, he reported that Iraq possessed ballistic missiles and the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons and that Hussein was a tyrant who had committed acts of brutality on his own people. On Oct. 16, 2002, based on all those assumptions, Congress passed a resolution granting President Bush authority to use military force in Iraq, and those attacks began in March of 2003.

Since those initial attacks, we have found some WMD’s (read more), but nothing near the quantity expected. And now, the Senate maintains that no link existed between Hussein and al-Qaeda. We do have ample evidence, however, that Hussein was a brutal tyrant who committed acts of genocide, war crimes against Iraqis and others, and crimes against humanity (read more). Given the insignificance of the link with terrorists and the WMD’s, the key question for us to ponder is this: based primarily on the claim that Hussein was a brutal tyrant, is the war in Iraq just or unjust and should we still be in Iraq today?

Justification for War

World peace and zero U.S. military casualties are obviously preferred to war, but from a Latter-day Saint perspective, what justifies war? In my opinion, the following list details legitimate justification for war:

1. To defend our lives, liberty, and property (Alma 43:45-47, Alma 48:14, D&C 134:11)
2. To resist rebellion (Alma 51:17-21, Alma 61:14, 3 Nephi 2:11)
3. Commandment from God (Alma 61:19-20, D&C 98:33-38)
4. To help spread or maintain freedom (D&C 134:11, Alma 27:1-5)

The present war in Iraq satisfies neither the requirements of justifications #1 nor #2, and it is possible that God commanded President Bush to lead us to war in Iraq, but let’s assume that He probably didn’t. Ruling out the first three leaves us with #4, to help spread or maintain freedom.

Individual Liberty and freedom from oppression are necessary for all human beings to secure their inalienable rights to worship God as they wish, voice their opinions, and assemble and associate with one another, among many other rights. As citizens of the most blessed nation on earth, we have a moral obligation to help spread freedom to anyone within our power to do so. In April 2003, President Hinckley said, “It is clear from [the scriptures] that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression” (read talk). At the same time, with this duty to fight for freedom comes a great cost to us in the form of lives, time, and money. We don’t have national resources adequate to spread freedom throughout the entire world, so we must choose our battles wisely.

Is it worth the cost?

Will our efforts to institute freedom among the Iraqi people succeed and is it worth the cost? Many people rightly assert that establishing democracy and freedom in Iraq will not make the Iraqis better off because their Mid-Eastern culture and social norms are not foundations on which a democratic form of government will succeed. While a replica of our governmental system may not suit their culture and ideals, freedom from oppression and some improved government system will surely do nothing but improve the situation of the Iraqis, if they are willing to accept it and work for it.

As for the cost, American casualties thus far in Operation Iraqi Freedom total 2,641 (see data). In comparison, following are the totals of estimated American deaths in other wars:

Persian Gulf: 1,972
Vietnam: 58,209
Korea: 54,246
WWII: 407,300
WWI: 126,000
Civil: 620,000

The cost in American lives for this war compared to past wars seems minimal; however, the question in my mind comes down to one: would I personally be willing to sacrifice my life or feel that the sacrifice of the life of my brother, son, or close friend to secure the freedom of Iraqis is worth the cost? I must admit that I would have voluntarily joined the war effort in either WWI or WWII, but volunteering my life or that of a loved one for the current conflict would be difficult for me, even though the cause seems just. Then again, thousands of military personnel have volunteered to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, for the Iraqi people. Could it be that their altruism far exceeds mine?

Just maybe, the ultimate sacrifice is to risk one’s life not for their own sake or even for that of their family, but for the freedom of friends they have never met. What do you think?