Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica's Moral Obligations in Iraq
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/our-moral-obligations-in-iraq-yazidis/375778/America's Moral Obligations in Iraq
"An entire religion is being exterminated from the face of the earth," one Iraqi lawmaker warns.
Peter Beinart Aug 8 2014, 8:45 AM ET
Which politician uttered the following words: Do we sit on the sidelines and watch an entire people be slaughtered or do we marshal military forces and move in quietly to put an end to it? John McCain? Joe Lieberman? Scoop Jackson? Wrong. The speaker was George McGovern, in August 1978.
McGovern is best known for his landslide defeat in the presidential election of 1972 and his impassioned opposition to the Vietnam War. Six years later, when he became the first senator to advocate U.S. military intervention next door in Cambodia, to stop the Khmer Rouges ghastly slaughter of between 1 and 3 million people, hawks were incredulous. The Wall Street Journal called McGoverns stance mind-boggling. But as Samantha Power explains in A Problem from Hell, McGovern saw no contradiction in his positions. Vietnam, in his mind, had been a profoundly misguided application of American might to prevent a communist-led independence movement from liberating its country from Western control. Cambodia was genocide. In his view, the U.S. had a particular responsibility to prevent the latter because its war in Vietnam had helped cause the trauma and instability on which the Khmer Rouge seized.
If only McGovern were still alive today. Now, as then, war has made Americans tired and cynical. Our government has, once again, invented justifications for military action. It has, once again, tortured. It has, once again, proven wildly incompetent. And it has, once again, squandered money desperately needed at home. Understandably, most Americans never want to hear the word Iraq again. And those liberals who were wise enough to oppose invading Iraq in the first place have been understandably emboldened to oppose future wars. President Barack Obama is one of them.
But if McGovern were alive, my guess is that hed watch this haunting speech by Fiyan Dakhee, a Yazidi member of Iraqs parliament, and then cheer Obamas decision Thursday night to take military action in the country. Today in northwestern Iraq, 30,000 to 40,000 people have fled to the Sinjar Mountains. If they stay, they will die of hunger and thirst. If they return to their villages, the men will be murdered and the women made slaves. Their crime is that they are Yazidis, members of one of the worlds oldest religions. The jihadist totalitarians of ISIS want to sacrifice them to god. In Dakhees words, an entire religion is being exterminated from the face of the earth.
I know, I know. As I have learned myself very painfully, there is an enormous amount the United States cannot do. It cannot solve Iraqs political problems. It may not even be able to hold Iraq together. It cannot solve the horror in Syria. It cannot defeat the Taliban. It cannot stop Libya from descending into anarchy. But it can save the people in the Sinjar Mountains, both by dropping supplies to keep them alive, and by bombing ISIS so Kurdish forces can retake the areas nearby. And in so doing, it can stop genocide. Thankfully, Obama is doing just that.
snip//
The impulse toward humanitarian intervention is dangerous. It can easily become hubristic. It can easily be exploited. Its meanswhich involve state violencecan often undermine its goals. But if crusades are dangerous, indifference is dangerous too. As sick as Americans are of the Middle East, as alien and hopeless as it seems today, we still have moral obligations there, less because we are Americans than because we are human beings.
Away from all political disputes, declared Dakhee in her speech, we want human solidarity. I speak here in the name of humanity. Save us. To the extent we can, we must. George McGovern would have understood why.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 890 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
America's Moral Obligations in Iraq (Original Post)
babylonsister
Aug 2014
OP
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)1. Forever War ...
is not a moral obligation.
Peter Beinhart was and remains an Iraq war monger.
babylonsister
(171,094 posts)2. No, not 'forever war'. Did you even read it?
Obama is trying to prevent more war, not start one.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)3. k&r for exposure. n/t
-Laelth
kentuck
(111,110 posts)4. My first impulse is to say that we are morally obligated.
But, for how long?
When the other country's leaders say that they do not need us any more and do not want us to stay in their country, does our moral obligation then end?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)5. ugh Peter Beinhart. UNREC
I hate seeing war pimped on this site. makes me ill.
leftstreet
(36,116 posts)6. The US had a moral obligation to stay the fuck out in 03 n/t