Legitimacy of Iraqi Bombing

Last political post, I used the situation in Ukraine to demonstrate that the United States should intervene in foreign conflicts only to protect national security. Had I not already laid this groundwork then, I would not likely be bold enough to write this post today. It's time to use those principles as it pertains to President Obama's decision to bomb Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is depressing. A full out civil war is in place as radical muslims begin to persecute Christians and other non-muslim minorities in Iraq. This situation changed President Obama's typical hands-off approach to a more interventionist mentality as he ordered bombing on these radical rebels in Iraq.

Naturally, all Christians need to have compassion for the plight of these Christians that are being persecuted there in Iraq. Compassion is a great motivation for individual action in the world, such as the action taken by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association. However, compassion should not impact foreign policy decisions.

I know, I sound like a heartless jerk. But governments are amoral entities which need to follow the contracts that they are created for, and charity is not one of those purposes. Last political post, you all probably agreed with my rationale as it pertained to the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but now because Christians are being persecuted, things begin to change.

I get it. I hate what is happening in Iraq as much as you do. But if there is one thing I've learned, it's this - it does no good to have principles if you don't follow them universally. Otherwise, you follow them only when you deem it convenient, and you mise well not have principles at all.

So we can't change the way we view politics just because we have more compassion for the situation that is brought in before it. Indeed if you remember back to Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" speech, you will find that that is the very argument he uses to say that all charity is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It would be far too easy to declare that some crony cause is necessary for humanitarian purposes. It becomes far too easy to manipulate the system to serve your own interests.

That's why despite my sympathy for this situation, I have to stand by and say that United States actions in Iraq are not legitimate.

Please join me in praying for the Christians in Iraq, and the continued United States involvement that I'm sure will come despite my feelings of illegitimacy.

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.