The Morality of NOT Going to War

For New Trier's student seminar: T.E.L.L., I taught a class called "How the Problem Started." In the 40 minute session, we focused in on two current crises, the civil war in the Congo and the conflict in India and Pakistan. I explained a brief overview of each conflict, and we then held a group discussion on what the U.S.'s role (if any) was in each conflict. Much of what we talked about applies to our current unit on war.

For sixteen years, the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo have endured a war linked to regional politics over precious minerals, interethnic tensions and power struggles. The Congo has become a severely civil war-torn country, most well known for its "silent war" against women and girls. According to Condition Critical, a humanitarian organization that gives aid to Congolese people, 1 in 2 women have been raped, victims of psychological warfare, at least once in their lifetime. Many females have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair. A video-clip I found interviews different rape victims and portrays just how terrible and seemingly hopeless the conflict has become.

Over the past few weeks, we've discussed in class how historically America has assumed the role of the father figure in the international community. We've seen this portrayed through political cartoons and have seen it through studying how the U.S. has acted in different wars and conflicts. So being the supreme super power we are, shouldn't America intervene once again in the Congo to save the day?

Well after reading the opinions of numerous authors on the Iranian conflict, I think we can all agree that it's never that simple. There are many different reasons why it would be difficult-not to mention controversial-for the U.S. to become involved in the Congo conflict. First, this civil war has been going on for a very long time. There are over 200 different ethnic groups inside the Congo's borders. Each group with it's own culture, values, and many with their own languages. Many of the groups interests are not aligned, yet they are all fighting to maintain a dominant position of power in the Congo. Sure the U.S. knows a little about this conflict. We've been educated about the general facts, but even the most distinguished scholars have only read about it. We're lacking the life time, hands on experience the people in the Congo have. If we're not living it, truly witnessing it, then how can we possibly begin to really understand the situation? How can we begin to help them form a solution when we can barely grasp the problem? Plus, the conflict is much more complicated than merely interethnic tensions. There are many, many other contributors.

So again, what exactly is America's role in this conflict? The possibility of invading Iran is a hot topic because Iran's situation severely effects us and the rest of the world. Our relationship with them is very fragile, not only do they have nukes but they also have OIL!! But the Congo on the other hand, aside from the fact that it is the deadliest war since WWI, their situation really doesn't effect us. Is it morally wrong for the U.S. to be essentially ignoring this silent war-not just against women and children but again the entire Congolese nation-or is it simply an inevitable causality (no pun intended) of a higher power with an agenda?