It's not about pre-emption
I've never thought the war could be validated by pre-emption. If that's what it's about, then my misgivings about the war will turn to anti-war protest (but I will skip the nude rallies). No, what I see is something similar to what U.S. marshalls faced back during the 30's - Al Capone robbed and killed until they got him - on a technicality. Income tax evasion. Now you can say that Pres. Bush has Saddam Hussein on a technicality - that he violated the Gulf War treaty and failed to disarm. But a technicality is still legal, and the fact that much suffering and death was prevented by locking up Al Capone (or Saddam Hussein) is icing on the cake.
I'm leaning towards John Paul on this one. I would not vote for the war in part because I'm too conservative (small 'c'), meaning that I don't relish a "big bet" - which this war certainly is. I also don't know what Iraqi civilian casualties would be, which seems to me a big unknown that would effect the justness of the war.
No comments:
Post a Comment