You might have seen the debate between Carlson and Cruz over America’s intervention in Iran and the US’s support of Israel.[1] It was not so much a debate as two gigantic egos thumping their chests. One major factor I did take from it was how firmly US foreign policy, like so many others, lacks a proper moral foundation, especially as it comes to war. Let me explain this.
To Carlson and
Cruz- to both men- ‘America first’ was the driving metric for all things, both
nationally and internationally. Cruz modified his position in regard to Israel
with the addition of his Christian belief that Israel were God’s chosen people.
On one level I
have no issue with coming at things from the point of view of America first.
But, that cannot be our moral framework. There has to be in place a moral
framework to properly use the principle of America first. Let me explain the
difference.
If we rest our
policy on national interests alone, then we provide justification for the likes
of Hitler’s Third Reich. A nation can claim, as Russia did, that it had a
‘right’ to land that was ‘always’ theirs. The emphasis here is on ‘right’, the
‘right’ to do this or that in the national interest. Or, as Antifa, we can riot
and then claim we are justified because our ‘cause’ was good, our interest.
Back in the day,
there were three ‘moral’ facets to war: 1) moral justification for war; 2) moral
behavior in war; 3) moral behavior in the aftermath of war. It wasn’t just
about the bare concept of ‘national interests’. Certainly, when the US was
attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was in the national interests to fight back. But
there was a greater point: the Japs were evil! We can use that same measurement
to measure Antifa: sheer evil! We’re responding to them not merely because they
destroy public property. Good and bad are our metrics; morality is our
measuring tape. That’s why we can say Antifa- very bad; police and troops- very
good.
And whilst I
understand that there are legal aspects to justifying war, they, too, are not
the foundation. It is fascinating that back in the day, Lincoln’s declaration
of war focused on states breaking away from the union, and attacking federal
property. He is super-super cautious in his wording, trying to make his
statement as non-inflammatory as possible. Fast-forward to the Emancipation
Proclamation and suddenly we’re into what comes closer to a moral argument. The
‘good guy/bad guy’ narrative is never too old!
Yet, we live,
in the West, in an environment that rejects good old-fashioned right and wrong.
Is it any wonder that Antifa and Islam fundamentalists are given the green
light, or that illegal immigrants have more rights that the natural citizens?
In US schools, there is no class on morality! Nor will teaching ‘ethics’ do. ‘Ethics’
has become ‘to each his own’. There is medical ethics, sports ethics, legal
ethics, sexual ethics, political ethics, etc., etc.. But there is no real
overarching, controlling MORALITY!
So, I say, let
us bring back the declaration of war, or something that approximates to it.
Yes, I get the reasons for not having it. Yet, there are solid reasons for it.
For a declaration of war was meant to bring self-reflection and analysis. Do we
have just cause? How should we execute the war? What will we do after the war? And
if you are convinced that a declaration of war brings too many negatives, then I
encourage you to think about an alternative that brings national and
governmental ‘moral’ reflection on war.
What do you
think?
[1] Tucker
Carlson, “Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran”, YouTube,
June 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smemFVe0l5E&ab_channel=TuckerCarlson.
Where there is a real threat to our nation by another nation - a real threat, not a manufactured one like Iraq's WMDs - we are free to attack without a formal declaration beforehand. That is, assuming we have given warning at some stage that their threat is unacceptable and must be removed or we will act to protect ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIf the threat has not been removed, we are free to act without further warning. Iran
Iran has made it clear for many years that the destruction of the Great Satan (America) is a key goal in its Ismamic vision. Their development towards a nuclear weapon reached a stage where America decided that program had to be stopped by military force, and so the recent bombing of Iran's sites. It was an act of war, required by Iran's on-going preparations.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of not issuing a formal declaration of war is that Iran can quietly back-off without requiring America to launch a full-scale war.
Great comments. Yes, you rightly point out the benefit of scaling in warfare. My concern is that of moral evaluation, not so much scaling. I'm okay with scaling. I want to see us as a nation be accountable openly, to discuss it in some formal way. Not sure exactly how that all looks.
Delete