Karma - Part 2
A few days ago, I wrote a post suggesting that President Bush's vision combined with his actions over the past few years probably bode well for America as a nation, because righteous actions (liberating Afghanistan + Iraq) will lead to a prosperous future.
There's one other issue that was on my mind as well and that's "Collateral Damage", which is the unintended deaths of civilians which comes as the result of military action. Does this hurt President Bush's Karma? Who suffers the Karmic punishment from the killing of innocents, even when it's unintended? The soldiers who carry out the actions or the President who ordered the campaign to begin with? Does the "end goal" (i.e. a stable and democratic Iraq) nullify the bad karma caused by the civilian deaths? Is it only the intentions that matter? And if so, shouldn't Presidents know that civilian deaths are an obvious part of modern warfare?
I lean towards the thinking that America will HAVE to be successful in order for the bad karma of the collateral damage to be wiped away. Intentions aren't good enough. Iraq, in a few years, will have to be significantly better than pre-Saddam rule. Good intentions can still cause trouble and death and someone will ultimately have to be held responsible for those paaps (sins).
Having said that, I can only imagine a scenario in which Iraq WILL be fairly better off in a few years. In 2002, Iraq was probably a worse place to live than almost any other Middle Eastern nation, and now, because America NEEDS Iraq to succeed, I can only imagine that Iraq will surpass every other nation (except Israel) in its region when it comes to standard of living indicators. That's why I was so worried about John Kerry getting elected... it was so likely that his actions would've led to chaos - he didn't seem to have the will and resolve at ALL to stick around in order to stabilize and democratize the country.
Another issue - the last sovereign Sikh state (pre-1840s Punjab) was established in an era that did not see the unintended deaths of civilians associated with military campaigns. Any deaths of civilians were done on purpose. Assuming that Sikhs, hypothetically, at some time in the future, establish an army in a Sikh state... it's not like the army would be handicapped by modern warfare technology because of its tendency to kill civilians by accident? Israel is surrounded by potential aggressors on virtually every border and that should be a lesson to Sikhs. If a Sikh state is ever established again in the Punjab... Sikhs WILL likely have to defend themselves... and the lesson of Israel shows that a Sikh army might have to unfortunately kill civilians (by accident) in the context of a larger goal.
There's one other issue that was on my mind as well and that's "Collateral Damage", which is the unintended deaths of civilians which comes as the result of military action. Does this hurt President Bush's Karma? Who suffers the Karmic punishment from the killing of innocents, even when it's unintended? The soldiers who carry out the actions or the President who ordered the campaign to begin with? Does the "end goal" (i.e. a stable and democratic Iraq) nullify the bad karma caused by the civilian deaths? Is it only the intentions that matter? And if so, shouldn't Presidents know that civilian deaths are an obvious part of modern warfare?
I lean towards the thinking that America will HAVE to be successful in order for the bad karma of the collateral damage to be wiped away. Intentions aren't good enough. Iraq, in a few years, will have to be significantly better than pre-Saddam rule. Good intentions can still cause trouble and death and someone will ultimately have to be held responsible for those paaps (sins).
Having said that, I can only imagine a scenario in which Iraq WILL be fairly better off in a few years. In 2002, Iraq was probably a worse place to live than almost any other Middle Eastern nation, and now, because America NEEDS Iraq to succeed, I can only imagine that Iraq will surpass every other nation (except Israel) in its region when it comes to standard of living indicators. That's why I was so worried about John Kerry getting elected... it was so likely that his actions would've led to chaos - he didn't seem to have the will and resolve at ALL to stick around in order to stabilize and democratize the country.
Another issue - the last sovereign Sikh state (pre-1840s Punjab) was established in an era that did not see the unintended deaths of civilians associated with military campaigns. Any deaths of civilians were done on purpose. Assuming that Sikhs, hypothetically, at some time in the future, establish an army in a Sikh state... it's not like the army would be handicapped by modern warfare technology because of its tendency to kill civilians by accident? Israel is surrounded by potential aggressors on virtually every border and that should be a lesson to Sikhs. If a Sikh state is ever established again in the Punjab... Sikhs WILL likely have to defend themselves... and the lesson of Israel shows that a Sikh army might have to unfortunately kill civilians (by accident) in the context of a larger goal.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
11:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home