War number seven just started in central Africa. For those not counting, the U.S. military is engaging in military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and now Uganda. The now familiar justification for this is that a rebel force is committing atrocities against civilians, and in order to relieve human suffering, it’s necessary to send in troops. The administration claims the role will only be to advise Uganda’s military, but it’s unlikely to remain this way. The wars in Korea and Vietnam started with advisors, only to end in with the deaths of millions of lives.
Sure, the stated intentions may be noble, but that’s how it always starts. The media never questions why the U.S. government chooses to condemn one tyrant while defending another and the public buys it all. They never ask why it’s apparently okay for the Syrian government to butcher Syrians, but why it’s wrong for the Libyan government to kill Libyans. Anyone who questions the official narrative is accused to being cold-hearted, or a terrorist sympathizer.
But if people want to help Africans, if they deplore the violence and injustice being perpetrated against innocent men, women, and children, nothing is stopping them from sending aid themselves. If they feel so strongly that something must be done, they can donate money or gifts in kind to benefit those who suffer. They could send food, weapons, or other tools, and, they could even go themselves. But to suggest that it would be unjust for the US government not to do these things is an affront to justice.
There’s nothing just about coercing money from those who do not support such interventions. There’s nothing just about forcing a soldier to go to a country and fight for something he does not agree with. Oh, but he is a soldier, and he volunteered after all, so if he didn’t want to fight, then he shouldn’t have joined.
The answer to this naïve and intellectually dishonest argument is that most soldiers I know (I spent five years in the infantry) joined because they wanted to defend the US, not other countries. And since this group of rebels has not attacked, nor does it threaten the US, any action taken against it does not constitute defense. Secondly, assuming there are soldiers okay with interventionism, such action would be outside the boundaries established by the constitution, since it is the legislature who is to have war making powers, not the executive.
Like this:
Like Loading...
