The difficulty with this type of situation is that it is impossible to know (for certain) how the recipients of this sale will use these weapons. I am sure that when the previous (similar) sales took place, fear of the weapons being used against the US was not a controlling variable. The same is apparently the case here. The motivation for the sale does seem to be genuine:
The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region (BBC quote)If this is indeed the case, and the Bush administration is seeking to offer additional support for such a purpose, then my hesitancy is (somewhat) lessened. As allies, it is completely logical to provide whatever (acceptable) assistance is needed. (Luke 6.31 would be appropriate here). However, the reason I remain somewhat reluctant to stand behind this choice--even if it is innocent--is due to the fact that it is all too easy for the weapons to wind up in the wrong hands. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
5 comments:
My apologies for the sudden shift in font and size. I tried on three separate occasions to correct both, but my attempts were ultimately futile.
I guess I'm always leery of such deals - probably because I seem to be becoming a closet pacifist, although I'm not nearly there yet. But I shudder at these arms deals - certainly because they may be used down the road against the U.S., but even if they aren't - they're going to be used down the road against people, whether they're Americans or not. As a Christian I don't know how to feel about that. I do recognize there may be times where war is inevitable and necessary, but I think most wars do not fit that category.
Besides that, our "nation-building" activities are incredibly dangerous - and we don't seem to be very good at foreseeing their long-term effects, for ourselves or other people. Iraq is only one of many examples.
Can you help me out here, Carl? I'm really struggling to make the connection between Luke 6:31 and what you're talking about here. What are you seeing that I'm not?
Before answering your question, let me respond to your second paragraph. I share the same sentiments as you do (with a slight twist)--primarily due to a conversation I had with a Muslim a few years ago. He flat out told me that Democracy will not work in an Islamic country.
He went on to say: "If you want Democracy to work, then you will have to completely alter the philosophical and ideological underpinnings that have sustained the Islamic culture. And that kind of alteration is not going to happen by simply adopting Democracy. To Muslims, Democracy is not a political change; it's a complete alteration of our society--and that's why it will not work."
Because this was the first time I ever talked with this guy, and because it was nearly 5:00am (he was my shuttle driver from my hotel to the airport), I didn't want to press the matter any further. But it did strike a cord with me and I have wrestled with it ever since. To me, it seems like the concept of "nation-building" is predicated on what the US thinks is a "good" nation. There seems to be (key phrase) no regard for the needs and social concerns of the people in need of help, and/or what will work in their world.
Now, to help clarify my comment about Luke 6.31. First of all, it was said slightly tongue-in-cheek; but the point was quite simple: if we want our allies in Arab nations to come to our aide in times of conflict, then we must come to their aide is similar times. I.e.: do for them what we would want them to do for us. (Again, it was slightly tongue-in-cheek, so take it for what it's worth).
One last thing and then I'll finish (sorry). I agree in part with your first paragraph. I support your fear about the fact that these weapons will possibly be used on people--whether that's us or someone else. Where I am different from you, though, is my understanding of having weapons in the first place. Ideally speaking (again, key phrase): one has weapons so that they will not have to be used. I know it sound ridiculous, but that's essentially the logic behind it--in most cases.
Today's weapons basically have two primary (interconnected) purposes when used appropriately: 1) defense, and 2) the ability to exert fear in one's opponent without ever being used. (Consider the nature of the Cold War). The thinking might be (key phrase) that if our allies in Arab nations are equipped with premier weapons, then their opponents are less likely to attack them. But if their opponents are ballsy enough to attack, then our allies have the ability to defend themselves effectively.
I agree about "nation-building," and I've heard the idea the shuttle driver was espousing from other places. Simply put, a democracy may not work in Iraq - but we think its best, so we push for it anyway. That's part of why the U.S. has been accused of imperialism - some parties in our government think we should spread our form of government without attention to whether people in other countries really want it, or whether it will even work. In my (oh so) humble opinion, this is a dangerous, destructive, and arrogant idea that U.S. citizens need to fight against.
I'd say more about Luke 6:31, but since its tongue-in-cheek, I can live with it. :) I'm not positive its the best application, but I think you're aware of that.
As far as the military might for the purposes of deterrence issue, I'm well aware of the idea. I used to agree. But I'm increasingly uncomfortable with it, although I haven't done enough study and given it enough thought to pinpoint why. I suspect its because I do not think it is a remotely biblical idea, but I realize there are legitimate questions of how to apply what the Bible says on a national policy level. Regardless, I lack confidence in most governments, including our own, that they will only use such weapons when it is absolutely necessary.
I also sometimes wonder whether there are some monetary motivators here. Quite frankly, $20bn is a great deal of money. Thinking like a business exec, if a company has aging physical assets (say office equipment) and decides to upgrade, that company is likely to try to sell that equipment to someone else to re-coup some cost. While a typical company won't get much because the cost of technology is constantly falling and the most readily available buyers are domestic, this is not true of arms sales. These technologies are not readily available to these Middle Eastern countries by other means. As a result, there is a large financial advantage to selling our "out-dated" technology to "allies" at very good re-sale rates.
Post a Comment