The problem with the argument is its simplicity
S.A.M. said:
Why is witholding medicine by a state or state entities not illegal, but by an individual is? Given that the state knows it to be fatal and the individual probably did not?
The simplicity of the comparison is its downfall. In the case of the zealot parents, ignorance is not bliss, especially when ignorance is
chosen. Let's think about that for a moment, S.A.M. This was not a choice to withhold treatment. This was a choice to
forbid diagnosis. The kid
never had a chance.
I confess that I
do not understand the notion that we have kids in order to let them die so that we might feel better about how we stand with God. And that's the thing. If I want to be a demolition derby driver, I enter the demolition derby. What I don't do is go get a job as a school bus driver and then roll the thing when it's full of kids. American society, at least, has certain expectations of parents. Sacrificing children to the God of the Bible is
so not on that list that we generally call it antithetical. And, to be clear, that is antithetical to both parenting
and Christian faith.
The parents didn't just withhold medicine. They withheld every fair shot the kid had of coming through alive, for a godforsaken religious delusion.
The flip side is the question of where one wishes to assume their culpability.
Historically, we
know that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person. Even as a literary character, it would be hard to redeem him. Have you ever seen footage of the purge, when they read out the names and men wept and pleaded, cursed and fought, and were hauled outside and gunned down within earshot of the next victims?
Yeah.
This is the guy we backed.
He was someone willing to murder large numbers of the people he was supposed to protect. The American idea of government, however perversely exploited, explicitly rejects such methods. Our social contract purports that government exists for the benefit and by the consent of the governed.
And no,
nobody can justify our meddling with Iran. Don't start.
So no,
nobody can justify propping up Saddam Hussein.
I used to think that maybe he was preparing for a regional water war. I couldn't figure any other practical reason for murdering a bunch of marsh-dwellers and then draining the marshes.
One of the toughest moments I've seen a war-dog endure is when retired General Schwarzkopf discussed what may be the greatest mistake of his career; he allowed the helicopters to fly after Desert Storm. And he pretty much knows what his impatience that day cost him. Yeah. That's right. He was irritated with the Iraqi negotiators. He was tired from running a war. He had orders to get the whole thing wrapped up cleanly. They asked about the helicopters, and he said, "Yeah, okay, whatever." The implications of what they were asking didn't occur to him. The possibilities slipped right by him.
How many Shi'a died in the following days?
So here's the question on culpability, S.A.M. What were the sanctions designed to accomplish? They were allegedly designed to disrupt nefarious weapons programs. And those programs
did exist at one time.
Do you want to argue that the sanctions were ineptly structured? Fine. I won't disagree.
Do you want to argue that the sanctions were poorly implemented? Do so. I won't get in your way.
Saddam Hussein had already deployed weapons of mass destruction against human beings. He had already gassed women and children. And like pretty much any tyrant, any civil resource that could be exploited for military advantage was being exploited.
So a question, then. Are you like me in the sense that when Donald Rumsfeld reminded us that Saddam Hussein had gassed women and children, you looked incredulously at your television set and said, "Well, yeah.
You helped him get the weapons!"
I think that counts as culpability. How about you?
Now if you want to hang the discussion on that point—why aren't Rumsfeld and others in jail for
that—I would simply note that, while I understand and agree, we still would not have addressed the issues at hand.
So let's warp back to the nineties for a moment.
What would you have said?
If the sanctions weren't in place, and Saddam Hussein managed to gas more people in the late nineties, what would you have said? What would American and international culpability have been? Enormous.
What would I have said? I can't imagine, to be honest.
I won't tell you the sanctions were
right. I won't tell you they were smart, or even decent. Rather, I would only remind you that the situation was not as simple as your comparison demands.
To destroy evidence of a chemical weapons attack, the dead were thrown into a pit in a field and then covered with asphalt. It is these remains which are now re-buried at Balisan Cemetery. But for many Kurds, the attack and what followed stand as testament to the West's complicity with Saddam Hussein.
(
Lyden)
____________________
Notes:
Lyden, Jacki. "A Lethal First Chapter in Iraq's Gas Attacks". Weekend Edition Saturday. June 11, 2005. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695648
