We have this notion of social contract theory- which helps us understand the origins of political power as well as its legitimacy, insofar as it suggests that in the early evolutionary steps of man we lived in a so-called “state of nature”. The differences in view are glaringly obvious when it comes to this socio-political state. Some argue that anarchy is a dangerous, near evil station that needs to be purged from our animal brains with rules of order and discipline whereas others believe anarchism to be the purest form of the human (societal) condition.
Intellectual masturbation over our political predispositions is never too much of a concern because it continually deals with the ever changing nature of man instead of the construction of the State which is the “path” we have chosen. Government ideal being: people living in a specific geographic region choose or are given a compulsory sovereign, thusly giving up some freedom so as to build the State and form governing laws.
The State begins and exists to check man’s inherent egotist position so that we can live in relative security with the benefits of “free” education, regulated health care, and so forth. This social contract theory tries to show us how the State originates and draws authority from the consent (or implied approval) of its population.
Now we are wrapping our little jingoistic crusade against Iraq. Although I don’t like Saddam Hussein- he does not seem like a fellow I would like to drink beer with- he was the legal sovereign (albeit a totalitarian dictator) of the nation of Iraq. The argument that America has been, somehow, “liberating” the Iraqi’s from Hussein’s rule seems not only fallacious but diametrically opposite of the very policies that the United States constitution was based on; considering that Hussein is just as legitimate a leader as George W. The populace of Iraq had allowed him (either explicitly or implicitly) to rule for a quarter century. Should we not have given them the opportunity to ask for help before bombing their cities and throwing an already unstable country into a violent chaos?
If the Iraqi’s did not support their government it should have then, necessarily, been the responsibility of the people to depose it. As we “topple Hussein’s regime” by attacking the people of Iraq we become a direct threat to our own concept of the sovereignty of nations. If one nation can overthrow another without the request or support of the general populace then our model of the self-determining nation is seriously jeopardized and we have the potential for an illegal war on our, already, busy hands.