invasion – Engaging Peace

Truth & Reconciliation, Part III, by Ross Caputi

Posted on June 23, 2014June 15, 2014 by kathiemm

Child at Fallujah Maternity and Children’s hospital. Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission — Child at Fallujah Maternity and Children’s hospital.
Photo by Dahr Jamail, used with permission

There was no casus belli (just cause) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The leaders of the coalition forces treated the lives of Iraqi civilians with reckless disregard as they bombed and invaded Iraq, citing intelligence they knew to be questionable. The shock-and-awe bombing of Iraq claimed over 7,000 lives, and the subsequent occupation claimed hundreds of thousands more.

The occupation also shredded the social fabric of Iraqi society, exploited a social division in Iraq that previously held little significance, provoked a civil war between the Sunni and Shia communities, and has resulted in entrenched resentments and a divided country.

Entire communities have been displaced, uprooting people, robbing them of their historical bond with their locality. The agricultural system, the historic seed bank, the marshes, have all been forced to change.

The medical and educational systems have been destroyed too. Many Iraqi researchers, instructors, and doctors have been assassinated. Many others have fled the country, leaving these essential services understaffed and incapable of meeting the needs of Iraqis.

Worse yet, pollution from war has left Iraq with a crippling public health crisis. Rises in birth defects and cancers have been reported throughout the country, with extreme rates in cities like Fallujah and Basra. Iraq will remain contaminated with radiation for billions of years because of uranium weapons. And the extent of the contamination from other sources—such as burn pits and lead and mercury from conventional munitions—is still unknown.

The occupation has left Iraq divided, polluted, and silenced under a corrupt political system and an oppressive government that enjoys considerable support from both the US and Iran.

What was taken from Iraqis can never be given back to them in its entirety. The harm our society caused theirs is immeasurable. Reparations are a moral imperative. Though the cause of the harm may be unidirectional, the healing will not be. Assisting Iraqis in the rebuilding of their society will cultivate in us a culture of responsibility, solidarity, and caring.

Join us at Islah [http://www.reparations.org/projects/truth-reconciliation/ in collaborating with Iraqis who are rebuilding the social infrastructure of their society. Help us in confronting the public silence surrounding the crimes committed against the Iraqi people. By campaigning for an international war crimes tribunal too, we hope to collaborate with Iraqis to create the requisite conditions for a future truth and reconciliation commission.

Ross is currently on the Board of Directors of ISLAH. He is also a graduate student and a writer. In 2004, he was a US Marine in the US-led occupation of Iraq. His experience there, in particular his experience during the 2nd siege of Fallujah, compelled him to leave the US military and join the anti-war movement. His activism has focused on our society’s moral obligation to our victims in Iraq, and to the responsibility of veterans to renounce their hero status in America.

War’s chance of success (Just war, part 6)

Posted on April 18, 2011April 17, 2011 by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for the sixth in his ongoing series on just war.]

The just war principle of “chance of success” demonstrates a significant divergence between the notions of when it is “legal” to resort to war and when it is “just.” One case illustrates the point very well.

In 1940 The Soviet Union invaded Finland for various reasons having to do with the (well-founded) fear of a Nazi attack. By any legal standard, including international law as it was understood at the time, Finland had a right to defend itself.

But this was a war that Finland could not and did not win. Just war theory holds that Finland should not have even tried to resist such a blatant act of aggression against it. Although it was clearly the wronged party and the harm done by invading Soviet troops was immense, Finland could only add to the killing by its resistance.

Finland of course could and did contend that its resistance would later on be useful. Indeed post-war treatment of Finland by the Soviet Union was more considerate than it was to other bordering countries of the USSR. Nonetheless just war requires that war has some probability of success other than making a “statement” of resistance or defiance.

The US is involved in several war efforts now but Afghanistan is the biggest. How does it measure up to “chance of success?” We are “nation building” with a governing ruler who despises us openly and many of whose own people think is unacceptably corrupt.

Even our forces that are performing heroic and selfless efforts to help the Afghans build a national consciousness are irredeemably hampered by the fact that they are, of course, foreigners, infidels, and don’t speak the language. We can train soldiers and police but we can’t make Afghans.

Chance of success: nil.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Ordinary people: Thoughts about war and peace

Posted on February 3, 2011July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Ever since 9/11, the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) has been studying the views of ordinary people concerning war and peace and related issues.

We started our work at Boston University but soon attracted psychologists and other social scientists from around the world to work with us on the project.

We have investigated, for example, the extent to which people from different countries, different continents, different religions, different ethnicities, and different genders define terms like “war” and “peace” in similar—or different—ways. We have also studied people’s justifications for invading other countries or torturing prisoners of war, and explored the extent to which such justifications vary among people from different countries, religions, etc.

We have findings from countries as diverse as the United States, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, South Africa, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Peru, and Nicaragua.

Consider what you know about government-sponsored aggression around the world. In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found? We’ll report some findings in our next post.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Principled moral arguments (Moral engagement, part 3)

Posted on September 20, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Since World War II, several wars involving the United States (for example, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) have been launched with initial public support. However, these conflicts lost their popularity when more and more Americans became aware that their government had been less than honest in linking invasion and occupation with noble principles such as bringing democracy to brutalized people.

Japanese Peace Bell of United Nations — Japanese Peace Bell at U.N. Headquarters (Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 Generic, from Wikimedia Commons)

Rejecting the pseudo-moral arguments for these wars, many people have embraced principled moral arguments–asserting, for example, that war is a violation of the Golden Rule, that no human being has the right to decide who will live and who will die, or that war and torture violate the hard-won international human rights agreements that grew out of the unrestrained violence of World War II.

Recognizing and rejecting pseudo-moral arguments and living by life-affirming principles is a challenge, particularly in a fear-mongering environment, but millions do it.

Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace. Established by a United Nations resolution in 1982, the celebration begins with the ringing of the Peace Bell at the U.N. The Day is often celebrated with greater enthusiasm and hope in other parts of the world than in the U.S.

Do your part this year. Consider the words of Miss Nida Ashfaq, member of the International Young Catholic Students (IYCS) from Pakistan, “Peace is not the absence of war; it is respecting and accepting each other and promoting human rights.” Then light a candle and formulate your own moral argument in favor of peace. Please share your thoughts with us.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology