-- This is a good read . Bombing Iraq isnt an act of war. Its an act of mercy I am anti-war and bombing rarely helps anyone – look at Libya. But the case for action in northern Iraq is an unusually strong one. When a shark swims towards a group of people stranded in the water, what do you do? You shoot the shark. Conservation be damned. Of course, it’s war that got us in this situation in the first place. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was wrongheaded and unleashed a wave of ethnic violence of which this is only the latest part. Prior to the invasion, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq and today there are only 400,000. One might argue that this disastrous record is a good case against the West doing anything anywhere ever again. But it also establishes a moral responsibility to clean up any mess that we left behind. And military action can play a part in that if it fulfils the following requirements: It responds to a humanitarian disaster. In the case of Iraq, we are not picking sides in a civil war (as we did in Libya or would have done in Syria) but acting to protect defenceless civilians. The Yazidis and Christians are being ethnically cleansed. They have been offered a choice between conversion or execution that is no choice at all, forcing them to flee to inhospitable areas where they face death by hunger and dehydration. The enemy cannot be negotiated with. The Islamic State is rational by its own reasoning, but psychotic by standards of international law and justice. It wants to create a caliphate across the region and its fighters are not only prepared to die for it but would consider having a bomb dropped on them to be an honour. There is no Bashar al-Assad to contain with sanctions, no Pinochet to extradite and try. These people cannot be talked to, so military action is the only effective response. Frankly, they would respect that. The objective is clear. Obama has stated that the action is limited to containing the spread of the Islamic State and ensuring that it does not drive into the Kurdish homeland or threaten Baghdad. This is not the beginning of one of those “nation building” exercises that rolls on for years. It is an immediate response to an immediate problem that does not bind the West into any further action. It also includes dropping food and water for refugees – something that, obviously, no one would oppose. The West has a responsibility to do something. And so we return to the point above about the legacy of Iraq. Only a cruel amnesiac would look at what is happening to the Iraq’s religious minorities and say, “This has nothing to do with us.” It is everything to do with us. I’ve always consistently opposed war, but I’m no fool. Wishing to resist militarism or the deaths of civilians caught in crossfire is a noble aim. But sometimes in history, we find ourselves in a situation in which a) we can do something to help and b) we have to do something to help. This is one such example. Moreover, I won’t shy away from stating a religious motivation: I want to aid my Christian brothers and sisters facing persecution. This does not mean that I value them more highly than any other group, it’s just that I do feel a particular responsibility towards those who share my faith and – this is crucial – face extinction because of their beautiful adherence to it. I want Mass to be said again in Mosul, where it has been silenced for the first time in 1,600 years. Those who share my beliefs will appreciate that denying people access to the holy sacraments is one of the highest crimes imaginable. To destroy a man’s body is bad enough. To destroy his soul is an evil beyond measure. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100282821/bombing-iraq-isnt-an-act-of-war-its-an-act-of-mercy/
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:22:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015