Choosing Who The West Attacks.

Human rights abuse is not an issue that the West goes to war. Think Apartheid South Africa and Communist China — they would point to the poor black people of the USA. The West goes to war when it feels there is ‘credible threats’ against its nation.

The Iraq-War is the first war in the post-Cold War era. And wars that took place during the Cold War era was based on the nuclear threat from the USSR. The USA and the USSR had nuclear weapons aimed at one another, and countries that supported the USSR was seen as ‘threatening enemies’ of the USA. And vice-versa.

The Iraq-War resulted from the 9/11 attack in New York City. Iraq was under an embargo restricting trade — it was closed like North Korea and under surveillance by the CIA, prior to 9/11. Upon 9/11, one reason Iraq was a ‘threat’ to the USA was because Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda — the group responsible for the attack. It was believed that Al Qaeda could retreat safely into Iraq. The Iraq-War toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and made the country less opaque so that ‘threatening’ groups like Al Qaeda had no safe retreat.

So the West does not go to war for human-rights abuses or to take part in civil-war if the current government is not a threat to its stability. Hence there are many countries today that are ‘oppressive’ and ‘violate’ the ‘every man’s standard of human rights, but are not attacked, because they are not ‘credible threats’ to national security.

Human-rights issues and lawsuits are adjudicated at the United Nations, through legal devices, not fixed using ‘war’.

There are groups that empathize with the Salafism in ISIS. ISIS has Salafist members but not all Salafists are ISIS. And it is popularly known that Salafist followers are oppressed, the way Catholics are oppressed or blacks are oppressed. It is a human-rights debate that is, by international custom, heard at the United Nations brought to light by groups like Amnesty International.

The war, involving the use of guns and bombs, is actually a separate event. And if one were to blend the two, it is said that the USA is waging war with ISIS for oil while sacrificing human-rights. But there are three issues, oil-trade/human-rights/threat to national security are all independent issues.

The West trade with many governments that have bad human-rights records yet do not attack them (trade/human-rights/no threat). The USA attacked Iraq and is attacking ISIS because of the third factor — that it is a ‘credible threat’ to its national security — starting with 9/11.

It is difficult to understand how the issues can be separate. It is like ’cause-and-effect’ but the modern world has created ‘disciplines’, law, government, business and religion, that keep them separate.