Re-Rail: Saddam's Violence (subtitle: how do you get out of a mess?)

[markomalley]

In another thread, a poster stated:

Saddam’s violence against Iraqi citizens is a seperate subject. And not one in which the US looks particular good (at least to me). For example, we should not have been surprised that he gassed the Kurds, since we sold him the materials and the technology. But that is a chronic problem we have, we make ‘friends of convenience’ with little thought about the long term consequences - much like our pecular relationship today. The 9/11 hijackers, along with money and assistance, are largely of Saud origin and islamic terrorists rely on the haven of Pakinstan - but, again, for convenience (and self interest) both are currently ‘allies’ in our so-called “war on terror”.

This had little or nothing to do with the subject of the thread (the subject of that thread was, I think, whether right-wingers should be allowed to post on Catholic Answers Forums or not)

But I thought it was something that I thought was worth mentioning and discussing…other posters have rightfully brought up that we empowered Saddam in the first place.

The general question is: if an act of State-sponsored injustice was committed in the past, what kind of obligation does that State (or group of states) have to setting it right?

Can that obligation include the application of military force? (ever) Or is that obligation limited to humanitarian aid (which, very likely, will not have the desired impact…if past history of government-sponsored foreign aid is any indication of future results)?

Iraq is one example, but there are many, many more possible examples that fit as well or better than Iraq?

• For example*, during the de-colonization period of the first 2/3 of the 20th Century, there were a lot of oppressive regimes that came into power throughout the third world. A case could be made that those regimes might not have come into power had the countries not have been colonized.
• For example*, in the wake of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was broken up and States were “created” through drawing lines in the sand, vice looking at the natural political and social boundaries. (Iraq and the Baath movement is a small portion of that)

Aramco and the House of Saud…is another related example.

In our own hemisphere, the existence of the Castro government could, in some ways, be attributed in part to our support of the Battista government.

And so on and so forth.

Is there an obligation to somehow set things right? If so, how?

Or should we simply say, it is what it is, and let things sort themselves out into some new level of stasis?

+JPII said in Solicitudo rei Socialis:
Countries which have recently achieved independence, and which are trying to establish a cultural and political identity of their own, and need effective and impartial aid from all the richer and more developed countries, find themselves involved in, and sometimes overwhelmed by, ideological conflicts, which inevitably create internal divisions, to the extent in some cases of provoking full civil war. This is also because investments and aid for development are often diverted from their proper purpose and used to sustain conflicts, apart from and in opposition to the interests of the countries which ought to benefit from them.
This is pertinent, as simply throwing money at a situation will result in just that. (The most recent example was the destination of the relief moneys in the ‘Oil for Food’ scheme)

So I am curious about Church teaching on the above.

 

[Hastrman]

I would say that thinking there is an obligation to set things right is consonant with Church teaching; besides which, in just war tradition, a tyrannical ruler may be sufficient grounds for war.

I would also say we are obligated to remove any strength we set up, when it begins to be used for ill.

And it says right in the Catechism that the prudential judgment on whether the conditions for just war are met, rest with those charged with decision whether to make war. In the US that’s the Commander-in-Chief.

 

[agmoose02]

But I thought it was something that I thought was worth mentioning and discussing…other posters have rightfully brought up that we empowered Saddam in the first place.

If you read this article on Wiki

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq

you will see that the UK not the US was much more involved in the developement of Iraq starting with the creation of the Iraqi monarchy after WWI. In fact the Brits were largely responsible for carving up the old Ottoman Empire after the war and determined many of the frontiers seen on the map today in the Middle East. It states the neutrality of this article is in dispute, but this section does correspond with my knowledge of the situation. Read sections on the Iraqi Monarchy, Iraqi Republic and under Sadaam. It also acknowledges that there was a broad coalition of international support for Sadaam against Iran at the time. However, this is better explained as a situation of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. No one was ever really under the illusion that Sadaam was a good guy, just better than the Ayatollah.

The general question is: if an act of State-sponsored injustice was committed in the past, what kind of obligation does that State (or group of states) have to setting it right?

Can that obligation include the application of military force? (ever) Or is that obligation limited to humanitarian aid (which, very likely, will not have the desired impact…if past history of government-sponsored foreign aid is any indication of future results)?

Im not sure of specific Church teachings, but it is my understanding that Christians are supposed to try and right past wrongs.

Iraq is one example, but there are many, many more possible examples that fit as well or better than Iraq?

• For example*, during the de-colonization period of the first 2/3 of the 20th Century, there were a lot of oppressive regimes that came into power throughout the third world. A case could be made that those regimes might not have come into power had the countries not have been colonized.

• For example*, in the wake of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was broken up and States were “created” through drawing lines in the sand, vice looking at the natural political and social boundaries. (Iraq and the Baath movement is a small portion of that)

Many of these regions were run by aggressive and brutal tribal leaders before colonization. It was precisely because of this state of widespread and vehement tribal warfare that such small numbers of European conquerors and explorers could subjugate such vast regions. And they were able to stay in power for so long mostly because they brought order to the chaos.

Aramco and the House of Saud…is another related example.

Aramco took advantage of the situation with the House of Saud because reality dictated it. The Saudis controlled the region already, who else was Aramco to make the exploration deals with? The Sauds had conquered most of the region by the end of the 19th century. The main reason we still have small Gulf states like Qatar, the Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain is because they signed protectorate agreements with the British in the late 19th century to protect them from the Saudis. Also because of this the British oil companies had a lock on exploration rights for oil in those states. This limited other nations’ oil companies to regions not in the British Empire’s sphere of influence, such as the Saudi Kingdom.

In our own hemisphere, the existence of the Castro government could, in some ways, be attributed in part to our support of the Battista government.

I have to agree with this for the most part. Though I think more of the blame lies with our competitors such as the soviets trying to undermine US policy. Same situation we are seeing in Venezuela with Chavez. Not so much our doing wrong in Venezuela but other nations propping him up such as China, Russia and Iran. Politicians like Chavez can blame the US all they want, but the reality is it is their regimes that have stolen the billions of US dollars that flow into those countries in foreign aid and investments and squandered it on the military or outright embezzled it.

And so on and so forth.

Is there an obligation to somehow set things right? If so, how?

Or should we simply say, it is what it is, and let things sort themselves out into some new level of stasis?

I think we should try and right some of these wrongs, but if we do nothing we are blamed for not caring, if we try to correct these situations we are accused of being imperialists and war mongers. Personally I am tired of this danged if you do, danged if you don’t situation. At least the US is trying to do something, rather than sitting on their collective hands and just complaining about how terrible the world is, but it cant be done by one nation alone.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I would say that thinking there is an obligation to set things right is consonant with Church teaching; besides which, in just war tradition, a tyrannical ruler may be sufficient grounds for war.

I would also say we are obligated to remove any strength we set up, when it begins to be used for ill.

And it says right in the Catechism that the prudential judgment on whether the conditions for just war are met, rest with those charged with decision whether to make war. In the US that’s the Commander-in-Chief.

Umm…no. That would be the Congress. Check out the Constitution of the United States, Aritcle 1, Section 8. The 11th paragraph there says that Congress shall have the power to “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”