34 readers online now

98,582 comments by 26,202 readers

Go to Mobile Site

Latest Articles

 

ADVERTISEMENTS



Premium Links
by Wikio

Computers
Electronics
Communication
Appliances

eXTReMe Tracker

A problem
Reader comment on item: War as Social Work?

Submitted by David Isecke (United States), May 14, 2003 at 17:48

Dear Dr. Pipes,

This is one of the few times I must respectfully disagree with an article of yours.

I strongly believe that 'social work', or humanitarian war, is moral and ultimately strategically beneficial to us. To see why it is moral, consider the cases of both World Wars, and most of our wars since. In all of these cases, there were stong isolationist elements at home, which correctly stated that there was no credible threat of a foreign invasion of our soil. Indeed, even in WWII, the Axis powers did little more to us than a few attacks on shipping lines and an attack on a relatively minor naval base on land that was not actually part of the territorial US yet. These were threats, but the magnitude of response required, both in lives lost and treasure spent, was orders of magnitude higher than could have been justified by the actual threat to us at the time. However, if we did not get involved, one shudders to think of what the state of the world might be today for untold billions of people. Others have already pointed out some of the nations and peoples who have been saved. The morality of this speaks for itself.

On a strategic level, I think it is important for people to realize that globalism cannot be fought; it's here now. The humanitarian crisis spots of today are the security crisis spots of tomorrow. The countries we have liberated are the very same ones from whom we have nothing to fear (French venility nonwithstanding). Furthermore, due to the very nature of international trade, the prosperity of one country is not really a threat to another; it is a boon. That we are trading partners with Singapore, Canada, Britian, and South Korea (just to name a few) is a boon to the economies of all involved. Over the long haul, real world prosperity grows cooperatively. Vile dictatorships are wretched at adding to it, and in fact, sometimes subtract from total world wealth by adding security concerns.

One clear example: The Korean war could not have been justified in terms of our security interests at the time. Yet, if that war had not taken place, our dear friend Kim would now control the entire Korean peninsula, and probably would be an even greater threat than he is today. This is, of course, besides the millions of South Koreans whose lives and prosperity they literally owe us.

It is for this reason that I also disagreed with your idea of installing a strongman in Iraq. Understandable, perhaps, in reducing the impression that we are an occupying force. However, those who are determined to see the US as evil will see the new government we install there as a US pawn. The world press will surely place every one of this strongmans' questionable actions at our doorstep. Remember, when we supported Saddam against Iran, it was the same princople: support a strongman who seems like less of a problem against a known threat.

Putting Iraq prematurely in non-US controlled hands seems to risk creating a future crisis that we could have avoided. If we want a say on how the world will look to the next generation of Americans, even on a purely national-interest and threat containment level, nation-building has to stop being a dirty word.

Finally, I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but what if Hitler had not started WWII with the invasion of Poland, and contented himself with just gassing Jews from Germany, Austria, and part of Chechoslovakia? Remember, it would not have been in anyone's security interest to intervene. Would such 'social work' be justified?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (50) on this item

Title By Date
"War As Social Work" [201 words]Renee BouvierNov 8, 2007 15:32
Enhancing America's Security vs. War as Social Work [22 words]jennifer solisOct 13, 2007 14:40
WELcome democracy [92 words]samanJul 12, 2005 22:16
The Long Term [180 words]AdamJul 23, 2003 11:50
War as Social work [164 words]A.K. LenceskiMay 23, 2003 02:14
⇒ A problem [605 words]David IseckeMay 14, 2003 17:48
Brilliant! [26 words]Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.May 14, 2003 11:15
reason for military intervention [102 words]dave morrisMay 9, 2003 19:52
Real war [189 words]A.A.May 9, 2003 18:38
Strengthening alliances [247 words]Antonio ChavesMay 8, 2003 14:27
USA saved Aussie bacon as well [166 words]Craig LawrieMay 8, 2003 00:41
Social Work and National Interest [171 words]William KinneyMay 7, 2003 23:01
The administration has an obligation to the American people to provide what it promised [223 words]Alex CMay 7, 2003 20:09
Altruism benefits no one [125 words]Maryallene OtisMay 7, 2003 18:41
Thank you for calling attention to the media's spin [171 words]K WallMay 7, 2003 16:30
How about DeSoto property rights? [48 words]Jules C.May 7, 2003 13:17
Well Done [14 words]Moshe CohenMay 7, 2003 12:48
Then why....? [73 words]Barbara RunkelMay 7, 2003 05:42
Remember 9/11 and American security? [160 words]Ivan BarnaMay 7, 2003 01:26
Amen [131 words]Jim FitzgeraldMay 7, 2003 01:10
Well put! [15 words]PennyMay 7, 2003 00:01
The road to hell [16 words]Vivek L. DevMay 6, 2003 23:35
It doesn't follow [226 words]Jim RyanMay 6, 2003 21:49
Unique point of view [22 words]Ann CiccolellaMay 6, 2003 19:56
Brilliant Insight [62 words]Peter H. RonaiMay 6, 2003 19:32
Whose Security? [305 words]Giulio BattistonMay 6, 2003 18:32
Take a Spin [5 words]N. HayesMay 6, 2003 18:28
Americans help make the economic recovery become possible... [84 words]Tilman WinklerMay 6, 2003 18:18
Islamist Schools [95 words]Graham Rael-BrookMay 6, 2003 16:53
Nation Building [152 words]Paul M. NevilleMay 6, 2003 15:00
Very well-said about war [125 words]rjalexandMay 6, 2003 14:51
Amazing [51 words]Larry BensonMay 6, 2003 14:29
War against Iraq [66 words]Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJMay 6, 2003 14:09
Philanthropy is our interest! [191 words]AvrahamMay 6, 2003 13:36
I respectfully disagree [128 words]Boris GurevichMay 6, 2003 13:26
Surrender And Be Free! [176 words]EdMay 6, 2003 13:20
Thank you: intelligence with common sense [25 words]Marcella JenkinsMay 6, 2003 13:15
Social work required [131 words]JockoMay 6, 2003 13:10
Right on!!! [107 words]Jacob B. Padgug, Ed.D.May 6, 2003 12:58
A ray of sanity [126 words]Patrick BramwellMay 6, 2003 12:14
Other Wars [88 words]Jeff FosterMay 6, 2003 12:06
Pipes says what Bush Admin Thinks [180 words]Larry DerfnerMay 6, 2003 11:27
With respect, this time you're off-track. [239 words]David ScholemMay 6, 2003 11:19
Iraqi Freedom [24 words]Ron WeinerMay 6, 2003 11:17
Germany after WWII [54 words]G.C. Colan, Esq.May 6, 2003 10:56
"Moral" interests [233 words]Ali LebanonMay 6, 2003 10:13
The Ultimate War Goal? [146 words]Alain Jean-MairetMay 6, 2003 09:57
Dr. Pipes has identified a MAJOR guiding principle. [86 words]DSm.May 6, 2003 09:51
Nemesis of Islamists [180 words]R.D. CrockettMay 6, 2003 09:19
Oh how the truth hurts! [155 words]Daniel LenardMay 6, 2003 09:16

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

ADVERTISEMENTS

All materials written by Daniel Pipes on this site © Daniel Pipes. Email: meqmef@aol.com