UNITED NATIONS
Even as the US’s post-war plans languish in Iraq, I maintain the same stance I had twelve months ago: reluctantly pro-war. That is to say, hindsight has not changed my mind that it was a good thing that the US took assertive action, against popular sentiment and UN action, to wage war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
My reluctance back then is the same as now, a twofold regret: that war had to happen at all, and that the US had to do it alone without UN action. I am neither a hawk who relishes war nor a dove who loathes it; so if I believe there is a just cause for war, I will support it, but with regrets. And while I wish such actions could be taken with broader support – both moral, financial, and military – if the UN is toothless and unable to enforce its own resolutions, I don’t mind if my leaders and my country are willing to go it alone.
I read a book review in The Economist today about the United Nations, and how American power was even more pronounced back then than it is now. After all, all of the other major nations of the world were either vanquished and/or war-torn. American production hummed along to the degree that it is estimated that it accounted for over half of the world’s output. And at the time of the creation of the United Nations, the US was just months away from unveiling an atomic bomb, a weapon no other country could even sniff of yet having.
And yet, at the height of its military victory and political power, Harry S Truman took the baton from an ailing Franklin Roosevelt – for whom the UN was a pet project that took up a lot of his time, even in the midst of fighting a war on two fronts – and pressed hard for the formation of the United Nations. Let me quote from The Economist:
“At the peak of America’s powers, its leaders were determined to create a multilateral institution involving as many nations as possible as a primary mechanism for ensuring American, as well as global, security. In his speech before the San Francisco conference [where the UN was founded], Truman was explicit about the price of doing so. ‘We all have to recognize – no matter how great our strength – that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.’ For America itself, Truman argued, this was a price well worth paying. The contrast with the attitude of most subsequent American governments, and especially the current one, could not be more stark.”
“We all have to recognize – no matter how great our strength – that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.” I am reminded of the bookend quotes of the book of Judges, in which “everyone did as he pleased.” Morally, politically, sexually, militarily – when we are powerful, we ought to be careful to be humble. For disaster lurks when we allow our might and freedom to corrupt us into thinking we know best for ourselves and others. Though I remain, as before, reluctantly pro-war, I am realizing that we are treading on treacherous ground. I am humbled by the amount of humility we need to have, the type of humility apparent in Truman’s words, the kind of humility I fear I do not see in our country or its leaders at the moment.
Even as the US’s post-war plans languish in Iraq, I maintain the same stance I had twelve months ago: reluctantly pro-war. That is to say, hindsight has not changed my mind that it was a good thing that the US took assertive action, against popular sentiment and UN action, to wage war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
My reluctance back then is the same as now, a twofold regret: that war had to happen at all, and that the US had to do it alone without UN action. I am neither a hawk who relishes war nor a dove who loathes it; so if I believe there is a just cause for war, I will support it, but with regrets. And while I wish such actions could be taken with broader support – both moral, financial, and military – if the UN is toothless and unable to enforce its own resolutions, I don’t mind if my leaders and my country are willing to go it alone.
I read a book review in The Economist today about the United Nations, and how American power was even more pronounced back then than it is now. After all, all of the other major nations of the world were either vanquished and/or war-torn. American production hummed along to the degree that it is estimated that it accounted for over half of the world’s output. And at the time of the creation of the United Nations, the US was just months away from unveiling an atomic bomb, a weapon no other country could even sniff of yet having.
And yet, at the height of its military victory and political power, Harry S Truman took the baton from an ailing Franklin Roosevelt – for whom the UN was a pet project that took up a lot of his time, even in the midst of fighting a war on two fronts – and pressed hard for the formation of the United Nations. Let me quote from The Economist:
“At the peak of America’s powers, its leaders were determined to create a multilateral institution involving as many nations as possible as a primary mechanism for ensuring American, as well as global, security. In his speech before the San Francisco conference [where the UN was founded], Truman was explicit about the price of doing so. ‘We all have to recognize – no matter how great our strength – that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.’ For America itself, Truman argued, this was a price well worth paying. The contrast with the attitude of most subsequent American governments, and especially the current one, could not be more stark.”
“We all have to recognize – no matter how great our strength – that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.” I am reminded of the bookend quotes of the book of Judges, in which “everyone did as he pleased.” Morally, politically, sexually, militarily – when we are powerful, we ought to be careful to be humble. For disaster lurks when we allow our might and freedom to corrupt us into thinking we know best for ourselves and others. Though I remain, as before, reluctantly pro-war, I am realizing that we are treading on treacherous ground. I am humbled by the amount of humility we need to have, the type of humility apparent in Truman’s words, the kind of humility I fear I do not see in our country or its leaders at the moment.
Comments