Sean P. Pratt


War and the threat of military action have always been a necessary part of civilization throughout history. Man is the most dangerous animal and since the dawn of time each group or tribe has attacked another.

Now clans, families and tribes have expanded into nation states. The danger of attack from other nations and individuals has remained the same. Perhaps that threat is greater now, given the technological advancements of powerful weapons like the nuclear bomb.

Because of this fact I am all for having an effective military force. In addition, the obvious perks of being a military vanguard include unilateral United Nations voting power. However, does this give us the right to commit acts of aggression? Under what circumstances would we be justified in attacking another nation or group of people?

As necessary as a military force is I do not believe that we can or should invade other countries. Nor do I believe that we have the right to arbitrarily attack alleged terrorists based on coerced testimony from prisoners of war. I will be posting articles that explore these concepts for better or for worse. After all, if we are the forefront of liberty and the defenders of democracy, then how can we possibly justify obvious acts of aggression?

Even if we find it necessary to attack or invade (and I am not justifying our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan in any way), how can we allow mercenaries to commit war crimes? If we paint a man like Saddam Hussein as a monster, how do we reconcile the few soldiers or the Pentagon’s private security forces for committing the same exact crimes?