(Originally posted May 14, 2008)
Well, I finally finished my crazy exams, and I have returned to Franklin. For the summer, I will be working with the Williamson County Public Defender — protecting innocent people who have been unjustly accused of crimes by our fascist government.
About a week ago, there was some kind of big hurricane over in Myanmar. My astute readers may instantly recognize that country (also called “Burma”) as being the setting for the last Rambo movie. Apparently the cyclone messed up a lot of villages, and many people continue to die from the devastation.
The collective world thought it would be wise to help out. While I was parusing the internet, I saw a link on Google that said “Donate money to help Myanmar.” Fortunately, my Drewish wisdom gave me discernment. I realized that any aid to that country would only prop up a wicked and brutal regime. Apparently, the people at Google and the United Nations never watched Rambo IV.
Within days, situational developments proved me right. The Buremese government began confiscating international relief shipments.
In retrospect, true charity must involve thinking through a situation fully and logically. Helping others requires a plan that will actually improve their situation. (People who give handouts to bums on the street fail to understand this principle.) Subsequently, I pondered the best way to eliminate corrupt regimes from the earth. I decided that international law needs amending.
When I mention international law, of course, I do not mean real laws. I am referring to Jus cogens, or international “norms.” These norms constitute a supposed global morality. If you ever hear folks whine that a border fence would “violate international law,” or that Bush “violated international law” by attacking Saddam Hussein, or that burning gasoline “violates international law” by polluting the earth, they are talking about these Jus cogens norms. Norms are not actual laws, but merely opinions of people. Examples include the norms that 1) peace is good and that 2) spreading nuclear weapons is bad. Norms are not laws, but merely statements that sound good.
Here is a norm I think sounds good: “War against bad countries is great.” We should encourage countries to war against nations governed by oppressive regimes. For example, I doubt anyone would really be harmed if a nation invaded Burma.
The new warmongering norm should be named the DREW LAW, after me. Essentially, the norm will proclaim that “Peace is good, but war against bad countries is even better.” The DREW LAW will embody the old just war theory of St. Thomas Acquinas, but also travel one step beyond: Just war theory promoted defensive war, but Drewish norms would promote offensive wars of aggression.
My proposal will combat the rampant rise of groteque pacifism within the Western world. Pacifism is the great destroyer of human life. Pacifism discourages resistance to oppression. It admonishes people to accept the status quo, despite continued danger or detriment. Pacifism keeps the Burmese rulers alive and in power (as opposed to Saddam Hussein, who is dead and out of power). The more people who fail to realize that war is often preferable to unjust peace, the more comfortable tyrants will remain.
Within a decade of adopting my policy, the international community will see a rapid decline of rabid dictators.
Of course, one final question remains — whether empires would be allowed to keep their conquered territories. I think the obvious answer is yes. What would be the point in allowing nations to attack wicked governments if they could not keep the spoils of war? Thinking this way, many Democrats have whined about the enormous cost of the Iraq War. Instead of merely helping Iraq, they argued that we should plunder the oil wealth from the country to pay American bills. These Democrats would obviously support my policy. Overall, the DREW LAW would allow a conquering empire to plunder the population, to some extent. This provision would give compensation to conquerers and create a proper incentive to initiate other just wars.
Now some my critics will argue, “But Drew, you’re crazy! How could any country be better off if you just replaced one dictator with another?”
Clearly, the conquering country would have an obligation to be better than the ousted government. Simply stated, however, the conquerer would not have to be perfect. The conquerer could keep the conquered subjects separate from the ordinary citizens. The conquerer could delay full democratic reforms, and refuse to integrate the new subjects with his democratic citizenry. Conquered land need not be returned, or independence granted.
If the conquering country were worse than the original government (or equally bad), that situation would obviously provide an incentive for a new just war. So naturally the conquerers will have reasons to implement reform.
If worse came to worse, at least the world would become more exciting under my proposal.