Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war
Former President Jimmy Carter is trying to inject a voice of reason into the debate surround the prospect of going to war against Iraq. Of course, the question is if anyone is listening?
Former US president Jimmy Carter has warned of the potentially "catastrophic consequences" of a pre-emptive US war on Iraq.
The comments came in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo.
Mr Carter did not mention either country by name, but said: "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences."
It would be far too easy to pass Carter off as just another misguided bleeding-heart Liberal, as the Shrub Administration and most Republicans no doubt will. Carter has always been a voice for peace, and there is no doubt where his sympathies lie. Even so, he does raise some interesting questions about the concept of "preventative war". Do we need to kill the patient in order to save it? Is it acceptable to attack a nation because we THINK it may attack us? What is an acceptable level of "proof of intent"?
I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, and indeed I am still wrestling with them. I do believe we need to ensure our own safety, but to commit an overt act of aggression against a nation that has (as yet) not committed an aggressive act against us? Tough call.
I've said before that if Iraq IS an imminent threat to our national security, we may have justification to proceed unilaterally. If so, evidence needs to be presented- or are we simply to take Shrub and his minions at their word? No, I think a case needs to be made, laying out the whys and wherefores for unilateral aggressive action on our part.
There is a part of me that hopes that inspections will provide the answers that will preclude going to war. Realistically, though, Iraq has had 11 years- 11 years to prevaricate, fudge, obfuscate, and outright lie without consequence. At what point do we hold the Iraqi government accountable for their lack of compliance? Good question; 11 years certainly seems long enough, eh??
