Post War Reconstruction Responsibility

[Big Guy]

When one country goes to war with another, there is a lot of carnage and destruction of infrastructure that takes place. These actions often result in homelessness and refugees looking for safe living since many areas become uninhabitable.

Is there a responsibility for those who do the bombing, killing and destruction to reconstructing those facilities that they have destroyed and families that they have made homeless?

One point of view can be found at:

http://www.jamespattison.co.uk/papers/BJPS.pdf

Edited August 28, 2015 by Big Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

This is a good topic, no responses so I'll bite. I would say it's dependent on the situation. It's also a moral question. If there's a clear aggressor that is in the economic shape to give reparations to repair the country they devastated then it would say yes there should be a responsibility.

What do you think Big Guy?

[TimG]

Is there a responsibility for those who do the bombing, killing and destruction to reconstructing those facilities that they have destroyed and families that they have made homeless?

Punitive reparations was one of the reasons for WW2 so an automatic obligation is not reasonable. The only thing that should matter is what is necessary to prevent war from happening again. If rebuilding a bombed country helps achieve that objective then it should be done.

Ironically the 'responsibility to rebuild' implies that the 'responsibility to protect' is morally wrong because any action done to 'protect' will likely cause collateral damage.

Edited August 30, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

This is a good topic, no responses so I'll bite. I would say it's dependent on the situation. It's also a moral question. If there's a clear aggressor that is in the economic shape to give reparations to repair the country they devastated then it would say yes there should be a responsibility.

What do you think Big Guy?

Thanks for taking a bite. I did not expect too many posters here to comment. It is a painful question to address. The last few conflicts in which we have participated, they have been against the "leaders" and certainly not the population. Since whole populations cannot be guilty (or can they?) for some transgression then we rationalize that we are taking out the leadership - and "free" the population. If we target the population then it is called a "genocide" and us good guys on this side of the ocean don't do that.

It is a hollow position and we know it. The West managed to mangle most of South Vietnam, declared victory and went home leaving the crippled South Vietnam to be rebuilt by the North. There was a little Canadian conscience shown when Canada did expand our immigration policies to allow some South Vietnamese (whose homes and lands we helped destroy) to come to live here. The rest of our allies we left there to be dealt with by the North.

In Iraq we watched the video-game like coverage of American military might bombing the bejesus out of bridges, highways, water purification plants, sewage plants, apartment buildings, electrical utilities etc. This was to defeat Saddam - the leader - and free the good guys Iraqis to try to live in the squalor that was left. The Americans waltzed into Baghdad and wondered where the Sunni Republican Guard (The Iranian 60,000 strong elite force) had run away to. - (hint - think ISIS). Iraq has been in turmoil since.

There are millions of refugees trying to find a safe place in which to raise their families. Right now they are breaching those temporary wire fences around Hungary (the same kind some bright lights here want to build around Canada) and flooding into Europe. They are Syrians, Iraqis, Palestinians. Libyans etc. These are the folks we made (or helped to make ) homeless. If we have no obligation towards them then who does?

I keep hearing a variation of "Fight them there or we will be fighting them here" as a rationalization for sticking our noses into foreign civil wars. Well I have one too, "Blow up their homes there and they will find (or take) a home here".

What I believe? - When you renovate, you budget for the demolition of an area AND the rebuilding of that section of a house. I think we have not only a moral by a financial and vested interest in those folks who we bomb. All that should be considered and budgeted BEFORE we drop that first bomb.

Thanks for asking.

[Big Guy]

Punitive reparations was one of the reasons for WW2 so an automatic obligation is not reasonable. The only thing that should matter is what is necessary to prevent war from happening again. If rebuilding a bombed country helps achieve that objective then it should be done.

Ironically the 'responsibility to rebuild' implies that the 'responsibility to protect' is morally wrong because any action done to 'protect' will likely cause collateral damage.

Thank you for your response. Not an easy topic. If the winners do not do the rebuild then the vanquished (they have been wiped out) have to - or another nation starts to move in to milk what is left. The families start to starve - where do they go?

One way to guarantee that another problem or war will be prevented is to kill all the folks there. They tried that in Germany and Rwanda and it really did not work well although with the German situation, the international community took land away from the Arabs and gave it to those persecuted by the German leaders so they had somewhere to go. In Rwanda the Hutu just kept killing those Tutsi until they had wiped out about one million then found out that the shape of the nose as a criteria for identification was faulty. In Israel, they are solving the problem by slowly squeezing the Palestinians off their land until they end up in the sea or in Egypt.

How often have we heard that in order to save them we had to destroy them.

I agree that if rebuilding a country helps to prevent future conflicts but then would not rebuilding a country guarantee future conflict?

The reason I started this thread is get some views of the more cerebral and serious posters. Over the last 70 years, the wars have not appeared to have resolved anything and have in fact created even more problems.

There has to be a better way.

Thank you for your view.

[TimG]

I agree that if rebuilding a country helps to prevent future conflicts but then would not rebuilding a country guarantee future conflict?

Over the last 10-15 years I have come to believe that outside powers have no ability to fix problems in messed up countries and that intervening creates more headaches than just letting things play out. Rebuilding stuff in a dysfunctional country is likely a waste of money and time because it is only a matter of time before the stuff gets destroyed again or it is simply confiscated by the 'bad guys'.

Unfortunately we are sometimes forced to intervene in order to protect our self interest (e.g. stemming the flow of refugees or clearing out groups that plot terror attacks within our country because local government is unwilling or unable).

Edited August 30, 2015 by TimG

[August1991]

When one country goes to war with another, there is a lot of carnage and destruction of infrastructure that takes place. These actions often result in homelessness and refugees looking for safe living since many areas become uninhabitable.

Is there a responsibility for those who do the bombing, killing and destruction to reconstructing those facilities that they have destroyed and families that they have made homeless?

One point of view can be found at:

http://www.jamespattison.co.uk/papers/BJPS.pdf

Call it Team A and Team B. And then, there's Team C,

IMHO, Team A should obliterate Team B. And make it plain to Team C.

If Team A helps rebuild Team B, it's further proof to Team C that Team A is stronger than Team B.

===

IOW, a future US president may have to destroy Mecca to show the Chinese regime who is strong. I pray Truman's poker cards are enough to avoid such destruction.

Edited August 31, 2015 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

I think it's impossible to generalize with something like reparations/reconstruction. It completely depends on the context of each situation. Maybe that's why there hasn't been a lot of discussion in this thread on this topic.