:: Richard Barrett's blog ::

:: Monday, April 14, 2003 ::

You know, I can understand people being against the war in Iraq. I've got somewhat mixed feelings about it myself (although I ultimately come out in favor of it). However, it's very difficult for me to understand the anti-war reasoning that goes along the following lines:

Yes, Saddam is an evil man, a brutal dictator, who has tortured and murdered his own people - even his own family members - and who has caused terrible suffering in his own country. But we have no authority to stop him, and certainly a war is out of the question, because Iraq is a sovereign nation, so their leadership can basically do whatever they want to their people, and everybody else is powerless to do anything but MAYBE use strong language about it. That's too bad for the Iraqis, but they won't understand it if we help them anyway, and will probably just launch acts of terrorism against us if we do. Besides, if we intervene here, then we have to come up with an explanation as to why we haven't intervened everyplace else, or we'll have to help everybody else. And hey, they're not REALLY doing anything against us, so we should just mind our own business.

There's something that seems terribly wrong to me in this argument. We're essentially saying that we have no business making a moral judgment a justification for war. We're saying it's more important to allow a sovereign nation to stand, no matter what, than to do something for the people in that sovereign nation that are suffering. We're saying process is more important than outcome - and if the process has failed the Iraqi people who are being tortured to death, well, all we can do is try to improve the process. We can't directly intervene. I don't argue the opposite extreme, that the end justifies the means, but I do feel that end and means have to be balanced.

To me this says that a policy of inaction is better than a policy of action. Better to do nothing and be wrong than to do something and be wrong. Better to stand by and pray the process works than to do something and mess with the process. I have a real problem with that line of thinking.

So then, my question is to the people who think the way that I've outlined here, what would have been the better course of action to have taken?

Changing subjects... I've discovered, just within the last two days, the delights of the Original Broadway Cast Recording of Sondheim's A Little Night Music. What a gorgeous and genuinely affecting score - and what a gorgeously recorded score, at that. Len Cariou has never sounded better, for my money. So yes, I'm admitting that I've been a singer for ten years now and I'm just now discovering this recording. Yes, I'm a Philistine. What can I say, except that it took me seven years or so to fully process my initial exposure to Sweeney Todd - and dare I say it, but I think I might even like A Little Night Music *better*. Now, if I could just swap out Glynis Johns and Mark Lambert for, say, Glenn Close (maybe?) and... I don't know... somebody with a more secure high B natural.
:: Richard richardtenor@gmail.com 5:28 PM [+] ::
...