I'm such a warmonger...

Response to The Algebra of Infinite Justice

The Algebra of Infinite Justice written by Roy explains the reasons to us that why America’s foreign policy is so hated around the world. She uses the OEF mission and Madeleine Albright’s inappropriate words on Iraq issue to illustrate the sophistry and arrogance of America’s foreign policy, and she also shows us that the U.S. government and Afghanistan are old friends, and the U.S. once supported Afghanistan in order to contain the power of Soviet Union. The author also contends that terrorism is transnational, and it is absurd for the U.S. government to target one specific nation in order to impair terrorism because every nation once had been invaded by the U.S. should has the motive to launch terrorism toward America. She argues that meeting violence with violence is useless. Policies of the U.S. and the terrorists are wrong. The other countries shouldn’t be forced to pick sides. American people shouldn’t back presumptuous arrogance of Bush administration and shouldn’t ignore the diversity of human being around the world. As far as I am concerned, I partially disagree with Roy’s proposition. First, I want to argue that who should be really responsible to the deaths of Iraq children. Second, I should demonstrate that the purpose of war is foreseeable peace and global economic stability. In the end, I also want to point out that actually it was American people’s will to wage counter-terrorism wars against evil countries.

First, eradication of dictatorships through war can theoretically decrease the possibility of humanitarian crises due to totalitarianism. To demonstrate this proposition, I will argue that who should really be responsible to the children’s deaths in Iraq. Actually, in order to avoid the humanitarian crisis triggered by economic sanction, the UN did launch a program called Oil-for-Food. But the dictator of Iraq Saddam Hussein didn’t use the profit generated from oil-selling to increase social welfare for children; instead, he used the money to increase the military expenditure. Saddam Hussein should be responsible to the deaths of children. Although war can cause humanitarian crisis as well (but due to military technology development, modern wars can lower the death toll to minimum), it will pale in comparison to the humanitarian crisis caused by dictatorships and totalitarianism. For example, the death toll of China’s Great Famine during 1958-1961caused by Mao’s desultory and arbitrary economic policy was over 10,000,000, which was the same as the total death toll of World War I. There are some other examples as well, like the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur or the killing started by Khmer Rouge; all of them were caused by the absence of mature democratic systems and the existence of dictatorships. In conclusion, military action is usually inevitable when tackling with recalcitrant dictators because they will not step down by themselves even people don’t want them anymore.

Second, eradication of dictatorships through war can theoretically prevent future war and economic instability. The purpose of war is for future peace, not violence. Numerous political Science and economy studies have already showed that the democratization of dictatorships can decrease the possibility of war and economic instability in the future. So in order to preserve foreseeable peace in the future, the United States and other western countries should promote democracy and republicanism all over the world and eradicate dictatorships through war when it is inextricable. In this respect, I think countries in the global community should pick sides. Supporting democracy and human rights is the righteous and reasonable choice. Recent military action toward Libya is a good example, the internal conflict in Libya, which later escalated to multinational military intervention, triggered the soaring oil price which aggravated the global economic recession. Admittedly, the previous foreign policy blunders made by the U.S. government were wrong, the United States should be embarrassed that they once aided dictatorships in Middle East in order to contain the power of communist Soviet Union and then propped up the hotbed of terrorism. But these blunders shouldn’t be used as reasons to oppose war against terrorists and dictators.

Last, eradication of dictatorships and terrorism through war technically was reflection of public opinion in the United States, at least before war. So I disagree with Roy’s statement that the war against terrorism was not American people’s will. We should always remember that the United State is a democratic regime; the president of the United States cannot possibly launch a war without American people’s endorsement. The poll conducted in 2001, after 9/11 attack, precisely showed that 90% of American people backed the war against terrorists. Roy could say this was a failure of American democracy and liberalism, or this was the tyranny or majority. But she could not say that President George W. Bush was ‘presumptuous’, as he was only obeying American people’s will. Since the 9/11 attack caused thousands of American people dead, he thought an immediate response was reasonable and necessary based on public opinion. The only issue we should question is the unilateralism instead of multilateralism the United States deployed when tackling terrorism. The United States should destroy the terrorism in Afghanistan and dictatorship in Iraq, but should not with the absence of international cooperation.

In conclusion, I still think that sometimes war is inevitable when dealing with terrorism and dictatorships.