Friday, July 23, 2004
Conflicting Values
"The commission rightly urges not only fighting a war against terrorism but aggressively combating the conditions and ideas that give rise to violent anti-American Islamism; it urges, that is, that the United States promote democratic values and liberal education in nations where Islamist radicalism now seems the only alternative to authoritarianism." - The Washington Post Editors (7/23/04)
I recently took a friend of mine to the CATO Institute to hear P.J. O'Rourke speak. Although Mr. O'Rourke is known for his humor he was in not really in a laughing mood. He had come before a packed auditorium of libertarians to refute a belief that everyone in that room shared; that the war in Iraq was an unjustified and immoral use of America's military power. His assertion was that America has several well reasoned foreign policy goals:
1. Foster international cooperation
2. Promote world peace
3. Protect Americans at home and abroad
4. Foster international cooperation
5. End human rights abuses
6. Improve American's business and trade opportunities
Mr. O'Rourke's main point, which I have thought about since his lecture, was that many of these aims are not obtainable without the use of force. Leaders of nations that kill or harm their own citizens or overtly state that they want to destroy America are not just going to go away. In addition, these people have amassed such power that the chance that their own citizens will be able to rise up against them is close to nil. Therefore, as the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has no choice, according to the author, but to use military force when democracy around the world is threatened. That is, if we are serious about the principles listed above. The 9/11 commission may advocate this country promoting American values in the face of Islamic fundamentalism but do they understand the full consequences of their recommendation?
PermaLink | 5:01 AM |
|
I recently took a friend of mine to the CATO Institute to hear P.J. O'Rourke speak. Although Mr. O'Rourke is known for his humor he was in not really in a laughing mood. He had come before a packed auditorium of libertarians to refute a belief that everyone in that room shared; that the war in Iraq was an unjustified and immoral use of America's military power. His assertion was that America has several well reasoned foreign policy goals:
1. Foster international cooperation
2. Promote world peace
3. Protect Americans at home and abroad
4. Foster international cooperation
5. End human rights abuses
6. Improve American's business and trade opportunities
Mr. O'Rourke's main point, which I have thought about since his lecture, was that many of these aims are not obtainable without the use of force. Leaders of nations that kill or harm their own citizens or overtly state that they want to destroy America are not just going to go away. In addition, these people have amassed such power that the chance that their own citizens will be able to rise up against them is close to nil. Therefore, as the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has no choice, according to the author, but to use military force when democracy around the world is threatened. That is, if we are serious about the principles listed above. The 9/11 commission may advocate this country promoting American values in the face of Islamic fundamentalism but do they understand the full consequences of their recommendation?
PermaLink | 5:01 AM |
| 
