I've been arguing a few things here, of late:
(1) Intentional mass killing of noncombatants is morally wrong, but may be the least wrong course of action available to us. Specifically, it may be the least wrong action when our survival - rather than our convenience or risk - is truly at stake.
(2) Our goal in this fight should be to defend not only our physical survival but, as much as possible, our liberties and our unique Constitutionally-based way of life. This requires that we carefully think about and articulate the principles we are defending and establish clear guidelines for action on our part in response to actions on the part of others.
Rantburg regular Thing from Snowy Mountain now has raised a third dimension to the discussion. So my question to you all is this:
Has the financial burden of attempting to fight restrained military actions against terror / Islamicist groups now become an existential threat to us? How can we measure that?
Would your answer change if instead of current actions against terror / Islamicist groups we were involved in similar actions against narco terror groups? In skirmishes with China?
In other words, can we lay out a principle and guidelines that establish the degree of economic impact that is sufficiently a threat to justify intentional attacks on non-combatants in Afghanistan or elsewhere?
g(r)omgoru suggests the Golden Rule, i.e. proportional response. Can that work for us fighting abroad, vs. Israel in Gaza? *Is* it working for Israel now?
Or should we just come home? Would doing so make us any safer?
ADDED: Or are we actually achieving many of our goals in the WOT? Will the current food shortages, the immense economic and social impact of the Arab Spring on those countrys's own citizens, the political turmoil in Pakistan and the potential economic correction to China's economy solve some of this for us?
What do you think? |