Assignment 9 - Drew

War is a terrible thing with which man has wrangled with for centuries. War, it seems, is a part of being human. Is war ever justified, then? Well, war unfortunately has it's place among the world of men, a horrible statement I wish weren't true. But the bottom line is that as long as people in this world war for evil or selfish motives, there will be a need to war against them for peace. Is this then morally right? Hardly. The slaughter of other human beings is never morally just, regardless of reasons or motives for going to war. And anytime a situation can be mediated peacefully, it ought to be; war should be a last resort. But when all diplomatic and peaceful attempts are made to correct the injustice, war is regrettably the only effective solution we can come up with.

As a global superpower that proclaims liberty and justice for all, there has forever been great debate over America's role in foreign wars. This is an issue that has just sparked up in the last century or so, since the U.S.'s involvement in the two World Wars. After the Second World War, America emerged as the most powerful nation on earth, able to wield not only massive armies and navies and the terrifying power of the atom, but also the commercial and industrial might of an agricultural and manufacturing superpower. As the "city on a hill," the United States shown as the formidable bastion of freedom, we felt an obligation to help nations around the world fight against any evil. Well, any evil meaning any communist representative. In the decades after, America would often prop up a despotic dictator in some third world country to prevent it from falling into the communist camp. More recently, are we to stop such leaders as Saddam Hussein or Col. Gaddafi? I would submit that the former could've been stopped in a much more efficient and civilized fashion. I'm not talking about the first Gulf War, which was one of liberating Kuwait, a sovereign nation, from Hussein's grasp, but rather the second Gulf War. The first one had the blessing of the United Nations; the second did not. The first one was supported by the entire international community; the second one was supported by only a few of our closest allies, who I would say were cowed into joining us. The first one accomplished its goals; the second one failed to turn up a single weapon of mass destruction. The first one was preceded by extensive diplomatic overtures; the second was not. The toppling of Col. Gaddafi was, I would submit, very effective. Instead of committing troops on the ground, coalition forces (which included more than just a handful of our closest friends) supported rebels in their attempt to topple the regime. Additionally, unlike the second Gulf War, the coalition didn't then go on to establish a government in their own image, but rather let the people decide how to best rule themselves.