Friday, April 08, 2005
Peace:
Pro-war forces are now trying to justify violence in Iraq because "history shows" that the War has helped to bring "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East.
I believe that this is a specious argument. "History" will "show," as it always does, that some good and some bad always come out of any action.
History is the process of change over time. People choose to act, and their actions have consequences--intended and unintended, good and bad. World War II got rid of Hitler and, one can argue, hastened the Civil Rights movement in the United States. But one can also argue that it created the basis for the Cold War and ushered in the Nuclear Age.
People cannot control the future, only the present. They can only act upon what they think and believe is the right thing to do at the time.
The real historical question about Iraq thus becomes, were we justified in going to war? Did the evidence support such a drastic intervention? Was it a rational or reasonable response to the situation at hand?
In other words, did we act responsibly based upon what we knew at the time?
I believe that this is a specious argument. "History" will "show," as it always does, that some good and some bad always come out of any action.
History is the process of change over time. People choose to act, and their actions have consequences--intended and unintended, good and bad. World War II got rid of Hitler and, one can argue, hastened the Civil Rights movement in the United States. But one can also argue that it created the basis for the Cold War and ushered in the Nuclear Age.
People cannot control the future, only the present. They can only act upon what they think and believe is the right thing to do at the time.
The real historical question about Iraq thus becomes, were we justified in going to war? Did the evidence support such a drastic intervention? Was it a rational or reasonable response to the situation at hand?
In other words, did we act responsibly based upon what we knew at the time?
