OK, we've all heard the stories of wars past where invading nations pilfered the pockets of the natives and were untowards with the women. But the use of war for profiteering is not supposed to be what war is about for America in the 21st Century.
An intersting issue hit the press this weekend which at first left me conflicted. The issue had to deal with a judgement by the U.S. Civil Courts against Iraq on behalf of the POWs from the first Gulf War. The Bush administation has refused to use Iraq funds seized in the war to pay off the judgements.
A quick note: I'm not going to discuss here the primary realms of war profiteering going on (the privatization of Iraqui industries, the Halliburton effect of reconstruction contracts, etc..).
Now, as the Occupying Power we are obligated to cover the costs of reconstruction of Iraq under international law. However, the Bush administration has made no secret of planning to use Iraqui oil funds in order to fund this work (even if it hasn't panned out so well). I do not support this because I think that using the natural resources of the defeated country in order to pay for what are our unique war obligations is wrong. This is a frustrating point for me since I opposed this war from the start. But once war is waged we need to do what is right.
So, what does this have to do with the civil judgement for the Gulf I POWs? It would have to be a dangerous precedent, in my opinion, to suggest that a country that is victorious in war can use its own civil courts to seize money that belongs to the defeated nation. Imagine, if you will, that Saddam successfully invaded Kuwait and then used judgements of his courts to seize the riches of the Kuwaiti upper class (In reality Saddam would probably take their wealth without a judgement). We might look at that and say under international law that Saddam was wrong to do so. What moral status would we have to complain about the behavior of a victorious nation if we behave in such a fashion?
I believe in the American justice system despite its obvious problems. But I don't think the rest of the world has the same trust. And I do not believe that our victory in war gives us the right to enforce the judgements of our civil courts in matters of international wars. That is a system ripe for abuse.
What I do support is potentially using some of that $87 billion to potentially pay off the judgements ourselves since there will probably be no other way to do so in the future. These POWs definitely deserve whatever the total judgement was for.
Side Note: I didn't follow this trial when it happened but I doubt that Iraq defended itself at trial. More than likely, Iraq would not have recognized a US Civil Court has having proper jurisdiction. This would be the position of most nations including the US. But I don't know this. I also don't know if Justice got involved even though I expect they would have given the implications for foreign policy. I'd appreciate comments on this.