« Moore in San Diego | Main | Do the Right Thing »
October 15, 2004
10,000 Germans Can't Be Wrong
In a debate that was supposed to cover domestic policy this week, the two candidates still found ample time to talk about the war in Iraq. Throughout the three debates, when the subject turned towards Iraq, Bush and Kerry often sparred over whether or not we had a proper coalition prior to invading the country. For instance, in the first debate Kerry said:
We know that he promised America that he was going to build this coalition. I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this.
Bush in the same debate stated:
My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
How does one define a proper coalition in the first place? More importantly, can a proper coalition (if defined) justify going to war? Perhaps it is clearer if we pose the questions in a different manner:
The point is a standard of right and wrong, not popular support, must be used to evaluate something as serious as a war.
To put this in the context of Iraq, it seems Kerry's main concern is that we went to war without the support of our Western European allies Germany and France. Yes Russia and China, members of the U.N. Security Council, opposed the Iraqi war as well. But one should note that these two countries also failed to support using military force against Yugoslavia in 1999, a war Sen. John Kerry supported.
So if Germany, for instance, had supported the war in Iraq this would seem to diminish Kerry's stance that we did not compile a proper coalition. As such, the war would be justified in the eyes of many.
Such a situation was less than 10,000 German votes away.
In 2002, as the world debated the use of military force against Iraq, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany was in an extremely tight election race with challenger Edmund Stoiber. Stoiber made clear he would back the U.S. on Iraq and even went so far as to say that Schroeder's opposition to the war reflected "isolationism". As I stated above, this election was decided by 10,000 votes. Did this slim margin determine whether it was right or wrong to send U.S. troops into harm's way?
Rights and wrongs are not defined by the majority. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the preemptive use of military force. However, if one uses the lack of international support as the foundation of their argument, it gives them almost no ground to stand on when the pendulum swings the other way. As history has shown this can often happen quicker than you think.
Posted by Peter Mork at October 15, 2004 5:41 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.economicswithaface.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/29/[What is Peter Mork's first name?]
(Please add the answer to the question to the end of the link in order to trackback this entry.)
Comments
Email Comments Here