Arvind Sujeeth

 

Moeller

 

Modern Revolutions

 

5/5/03

 

Good and Evil

 

            In the existentialist Twenty-First century, there is no such thing as good and evil. To the cat’s eye, he is justified for attacking the mouse to survive; the mouse retorts with the same argument. The terrorists that flew planes into the World Trade Center did so because America has consistently thrown its weight around where it did not belong; they were freedom fighters using the only means they could. Not only should America react with enlightened respect for the passion of these people longing for their sovereignty, we should realize our own fallacies and arrogances, do the world a favor, and leave them alone. They might not be developing weapons of mass destruction because they hate the way we live; they might not use them if they have them – after all, we have them, and haven’t used them…yet.

            Or, the men that flew planes into the World Trade Center did so to kill three thousand people – “hopefully” more.

            They toppled our highest buildings, thinking they could topple our hearts with them.

            They attacked the heart of our strongest city to deliver a message: Americans can be killed.

             They attacked the symbols of capitalism and America’s economic power because they bitterly hated everything those symbols stood for.

            And they’ll gladly do it again; thousands, tens of thousands, tens of millions – whatever it takes to prove to the world that their distorted vision of Islam is the right and true way to live, and that anything else is a sin against Allah.

            The essence of the pro-war argument – the essence of my pro-war argument – is not an argument of security, although that is by no means an unworthy goal. We are the strongest nation in the world; our security has been attacked, but never threatened. We have, however, been brought to face the tumultuous events that shape the geopolitical world into the 21st century – the barbarism, ruthlessness, and destructiveness much of the rest of the world faces on a daily basis. Our eyes have been opened not to hatred, but to sympathy; we have now shared vulnerability with the world on an unprecedented scale. I will posit, then, that this is not a war merely against terrorism as much as it is a war to protect humanity as we have never undertaken to do before.

 

            10 December 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

…Now, therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS…

The modern world is not simply existentialist, as I mentioned in passing earlier, but a world that has lost itself in its own political correctness. In 1948, it was not a difficult thing to proclaim that the foundation of all inalienable rights was “freedom, justice and peace.” Today, such a claim is intolerant of the way others choose to live their lives; it is a selfish, close-minded and narrow view that displays the common American misconception that our way must be the best way. France and Germany appear to have gotten the ‘peace’ part right, but forgotten about Freedom and Justice. Peace for the sole sake of peace cannot be right; if peace were the only goal, then any life would be worth living.

            Let me stray a bit from the lofty ideals which I have taken to speaking of, and return to the concrete elements at hand. I will concede that the Bush Administration, at times, has practiced inept diplomacy; it has opted for force rather than tact, and with it, so has America. Tact, however, is playing only a power game; it is giving a courtesy bow to other nations so that they might feel good about themselves. The end result – the necessary result – is one of force. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to disarm, end his oppressive ways, or maybe even just stop gassing thousands of people to death; enough is enough. I will concede that Saddam is not the only threat; but he has been a consistent threat. It would be my hope, however, that the rest of the world was less interested in being appalled by Bush’s cowboy politics and religious convictions (much less the terminology of good and evil) as they were in being appalled that as a race we still tolerate murder, genocide, oppression, and a host of other acts that, regardless of what politically correct perspective you apply to it, “have outraged the conscience of mankind.” If there is any goal that the world – and liberal Europe especially – should rally around, it is the idea that peace can only be attained when the oppressed peoples themselves are at peace. It is the idea that tyrants are not simply a way of life, they are a wrong way of life. It is the idea that religious fanatics willing to level two skyscrapers with over 3000 civilians in them are infinitely more dangerous and absurd than United States precision bombs targeting the military posts of a ruthless and contemptuous tyrant. It is the idea that we’ve given peace a chance – and it hasn’t worked.

            As I wind my way down, with so much left to say, but not enough words left to say them, I will address the two most significant arguments to the United States war against Iraq. First, that we have entered a war with a disregard for others’ lives; we have dehumanized our enemies by calling them evil; we topple a dictator at the expense of families, sons and daughters, who will never again see their fathers and mothers, or worse, may never have a chance to live their own life. To this argument, and those who make it, I say this: this is the necessary tragedy of war. The alternative, to allow that very dictator the reins to use those very people as human shields, treating them as little more than cattle to be starved and disregarded at will, is unimaginably worse. Those who do have a chance to live their lives in such a regime will have never experienced life, but only a sorrowed, desolate, fraction of a conception of what life can be. And it isn’t worth it. The second argument is that the United States hasn’t entered the Middle East to save lives; we’ve entered it to save oil and give the world the metaphorical finger. And there is no getting around it; this argument scares the hell out of me because of the potential of its validity. My answer, however, is twofold; first, I have faith. I have faith in George Bush and I have faith in Tony Blair, and I believe they are both men of integrity that are doing this for all the right reasons. Second, that even if they aren’t – even if it is all just about oil - we are, in the process, accomplishing everything I have spent this rant proclaiming is good and right. It may be a byproduct, then, of all the wrong intentions, but the end is still an end with one less tyrant and hundreds of thousands more people tasting what we have proclaimed to be “inalienable” human rights for the first time. And that satisfies me, for now. For now, I believe the timeless war between good and evil is being waged – perspective be damned – and that good has just won a valuable battle.