Morality And Iraq War: Analysis Of Traditional Grounds For Just War Theory

Just cause and evidence for the war

Write about the Morality and Iraq War.

The Iraq war of 2003 had always raised the question if this war can be morally justified. Traditionally, the following grounds have been used as an excuse to take recourse to war. These are proportionality, right intention, last resort, legitimate authority, prospects of success and just cause. When it comes to the Iraq war, nearly all of these reasons (except the chances of success) appear to be doubtful (Dowd, 2006). The question arises if the war was in fraction to the evil the war tried to fix. It needs to be noted in this regard that although Saddam was neutralized but a large number of persons were killed and thousands suffered injuries and pulmonary disablement. Similarly, after the war there was great, chaos and hardships for the people (Enemark and Michaelsen, 2005). Therefore, it needs to be seen if it was the correct intent or if there were concealed motives like oil present behind the war. Similarly, was the war a last resort? The answer will be no as the sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the weapons inspections would have persisted. Similarly, was there any legitimate authority behind the war? The United Nations as well as the Pope and a number of individual states and other organizations are totally against this war. Therefore, it needs to be seen if Blair and Bush can be considered as legitimate authorities in their own right (Fiala, 2008). Even if the answer to this question may be affirmative, still there were a large number of citizens of their own countries were against the war and therefore if such authority was acceptable anyway? 

Just cause: the most significant of the post-Christian traditional criteria for the war is the case of just cause. The wars are defended on the basis of self-defense or on the grounds of saving a state from an assault by another state. However, it has to be seen if any of these justifications can be applied in case of Iraq war of 2003. Similarly, there was no evidence related with the use of the weapons of mass destruction or the presence of terrorist links that could have dangerously endangered the West (Greeley, 2007). In this context, the argument of the terrorist links of Iran was probably one of the most implausible arguments for going to war against Iraq. For a number of years, Saddam remained a bete noir for the Islamic terrorists. Therefore he had fine cause to make efforts to control terrorism still legal efforts were made by President Bush before invading Iraq to contain terrorism and for this purpose make efforts to reduce and understand the causes of terrorism, the most blatant one is the chronic oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Then the question is if there was evidence to suggest that Iraq was going to be attacked and therefore the coalition required to protect them (Gupta, 2008). Though there was no such evidence. The grounds that were emphasized by Tony Blair for attack on Iraq were a threat has been caused to the West as a result of the presence of the weapons of mass destruction with Iran. But it is also debatable that in such a case. There are other states that also have the weapons of mass destruction like Israel, France and India. Will these states also be invaded on these grounds? On the other hand, the arguments given by President Bush for going to war against Iraq included an additional argument. According to it, 'regime change' in Iraq was also a reason behind the Iraq war. Perhaps this argument can be treated as the most persuasive, although it fails to answer the question why regime change in Iraq was considered to be so necessary in Iraq when they were many other dictatorships present in the world (Karoubi, 2004). Was this war, only for the benefit of the Iraqis or if the US was also going to have some advantage in it like safer oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and Caucasus. It may have been believed by the West that the main objective behind the Iraq war of 2003 was to change the regime in Iran, but this was not said publicly by the Western leaders, including Tony Blair before the war (Keohane, 2003). The reason could be that these leaders believe that either the United Nations or the public from the Western countries do not consider this reason as a just cause for war against Iraq. In the later case, perhaps he was mistaken, because, ironically this reason could have been much more acceptable as compared to the reason selected by them for going to war. It can also be said that the Western leaders including Bush and Blair were considered to be somewhat casual in their approach towards the war against Iraq (Miller, 2008). They have ordered the war like any other form of foreign policy. It appeared that they were not aware of the dread and horror that is a characteristic of war as any other statesmen of the older generation who had lived through the World War II would have known and also the people from the military who have actually gone through the experience of war. 

The Western leaders' perspective towards the war

In Iraq, war of 2003, hundreds of soldiers from the Western countries have died. On the other hand, it is estimated that 20,000 Iraqis were also killed while tens of thousands of Iraqis were left wounded. There was an unprovoked attack. In this world which resulted in agony and death for a large number of innocent citizens (Nardin, 2002). Some people have even gone to the extent of claiming that there was no such unprovoked war caused by the Western world since Hitler had invaded Poland in 1939 and in the same way, such unprovoked war had not been waged by Britain for more than 100 years.

The Just War Theory is divided into three parts. jus ad bellum, which is related with the requirements for declaring war, jus in bello , that is concerned with the rules of engagement throughout the war and jus post bellum which is related with how to properly terminate a war. However, the most difficult part related with the theory of just war is related with the fact when a country has to decide if it is going to declare war or not, which is also called jus in bello. For the purpose of claiming that the war is justified in accordance with the just war theory, there are six requirements that need to be satisfied (Walzer, 1977). For this purpose, it is required that there should be a just cause, the state declaring the war should have the right intention, a public declaration of war should be made, board should be declared as well as the resort, reasonable chances of success should be present and  the benefits of declaring war should be more than the cost of the war. If all the above mentioned six requirements are present, it can be said that a particular war is a just war (Fiala, 2008). On the other hand, if even one of these requirements is not fulfilled, the decision to declare war cannot be claimed as justified (Ramsey, 1992). In this way, the decision to wage war against Iraq in 2003 can be described as an example of unjust war as it failed to fulfill the criteria mentioned above related with a just war. 

The main case of the allies made in favor of the declaration of war against Iraq was based on the fact that Iraq possessed the weapons of mass destruction and was manufacturing even more. To a lot of people, this situation appeared to be highly probable due to two reasons. The first reason was that the weapons of mass destruction have been used by Iraq in the past, during the war with Iran, and also against its own people (Butler, 2012). The second reason was that Iraq had been very and cooperated with the UN inspectors who were inspecting Iraq after the war of 1991 for the purpose of making sure that all the weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by Iraq. Still, the specters have not completed their work when they were pushed out of Iraq and were not allowed to return on the orders given by Saddam Hussein. In view of both these facts, it appeared highly likely to a number of people that perhaps Iraq was having and manufacturing the weapons of mass destruction. But when Iraq was threatened with war in early 2003 if it did not allow the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq, at last Iraq had agreed to comply. It appears that it would have been a great victory for the Bush administration because it would have provided them with a concrete proof regarding the weapons of mass destruction before waging war against Iraq, a lot of people were stunned when the Allies decided to declare war against Iraq before they have received the final report from the UN inspectors. It is way, it is clear on the basis of the above-mentioned sequence of events that the argument related with the presence of the weapons of mass destruction does not hold much water.

Unprovoked attack resulting in agony and death

The question is still unanswered why the United States of America decided against waiting for the final report of the UN inspectors. In the same way, the United States had also raised its arguments on the possible connection that existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The US has used its its own credibility to claim that the information. It was giving regarding the axis between these two, was in fact true. As it was later on amply established that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the US government was also aware of this fact before declaring war against Iraq, the question arises, what were the intentions of the United States when it made a decision to wage war against Iraq in 2003. There are some who argue that Bush wanted to enhance his prospects of re-election in 2003, there are others who believe that he wanted to avenge his father. But the most plausible claim that can be made in favor of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, if not concerned with the weapons of mass destruction, could be to gain access over the abundant oil supply of Iraq. Even if this argument has been vehemently denied by the Bush administration, it is not very easy to ignore the possibility that the increasing dependence of the United States on oil can be a significant factor, while making a decision to wage war against Iraq in 2003. 

Christian ethics: As against Hitler, who had his own distorted ethical system, the Western leaders, Blair and Bush were professed Christians. Still, it shows that there is little in the Christian ethics that can be used to defend the Iraq war. On the contrary, it appeared to many religious leaders that their actions were completely antithetical to Christianity and the teachings of peace, love and turning the other cheek given by Jesus (O’Keefe and Coady, 2005). Therefore how it can be explained. Probably these two leaders had some particular logic of mission or their own understanding of the ethics. If this was the case, these leaders have not yet opened it. Typically, the suspicious fantasies comprise the inflated fear of attack (when there is no real evidence) along with the religious sense of being a savior. Although these patterns can also be seen generally among the mentally disturbed, but it is not being suggested that these were also present among the Western leaders (Ramazani, 2008). However well concealed they may be, as paranoid conditions generally are, these delusions are generally not supported by convincing and rational ethics even if they are claimed to be principled. As against this situation and in order to be fair to Tony Blair, he appears to be a person who is concerned with moral principles and probably he had acted on a rational and principled moral position in this matter. If this was the case, what could it have been? For this purpose, the two other possibilities have to be reviewed briefly. 

Just War Theory criteria and requirements

Kant and utilitarian: it has already been considered and discarded that just war position and the Christian ethics are not applicable. Therefore, both of them simply cannot be used to justify the Iraq war. Hence, it has to be seen if the same objective can be achieved by Kant. In case of the Kantian view of ethics, there is a respect for law and the requirement according to which the parties are required to act on principle instead of pragmatism (Regan, 1996). Most notably, it has been argued by Kant that humanity should not be treated as a means, but it should always be considered as an end. This means that there should be strong and principled respect present for the individuals. However, if this position can be seen in the killing and wounding of the thousands of Iraqi people by the coalition is a matter of debate. There are not much arguments present to support this contention (Roth, 2006). Therefore, it appears that they are only left with a utilitarian defense of the Iraq war and the argument that the aggregate benefits of the war (in terms of happiness) are much more than the aggregate pain caused by the war. However, this appears to be uncertain. When we add up the future benefits of each person (which are largely unknown) from being liberated from the tyranny of Saddam and then add all the pains that was caused to the people who were wounded, bereaved and terrified or were rendered jobless and homeless as a result of the war, the balance is not clear.

Probably the total benefits of this war will become clear in the longer run. However, some of the leading utilitarian philosophers of the world opposed the war. It appears that some kind of vague utilitarianism is underlined the official thinking. Blair had used this argument, at least on one occasion when he was asked in early 2003 how this war can be justified, he replied that the innocent victims of the war will be much less than the victims of the wars waged by Saddam. 

Regime change or humanitarian intervention: The basic argument under this heading will be like "we are going to attack your country for the purpose of liberating the general people of the country from the oppression of the tyrannical dictator. To an extent, this was claimed by George Bush, however this reason was given by Tony Blair only as a substitute. Still, the argument of regime change or humanitarian intervention appears to be a good argument to justify the Iraq war (Silverstone, 2007). The whole idea related with the so-called immunity enjoyed by the heads of state has taken a downturn, particularly after the case of Gen. Pinochet. Nowadays, the Heads of State and prime ministers are quite rightly considered as being liable for the crimes committed by the state against their own citizens and also against other people. Therefore it can be considered as a major step taken in the right direction. Such a step will make the dictators aware of the fact that ultimately they will have to face the consequences of their illegal actions. If they resort to gross injustice, war, torture or oppression, the dictators can be attacked by the international community. Hence the boundaries of a state cannot be used for providing protection from the application of international law and ethics. Probably the practice adopted by the desire is to target the cars of notorious terrorists can be adopted by the international community and the tyrannical dictators can be taken out by using precise missile attacks. The situation is changing rapidly as the older generation among the politicians is on their way out. Therefore, the international community is not much in the river of protecting the political and military leaders irrespective of their behavior (as they all have adopted a stick together approach) and more and more influential persons are now being asked by international organizations like the UN and international tribunal at The Hague to give account for their actions. Similarly naming and shaming techniques are also being used as a sanction and this approach appears to be quite right.

Unjust war and failure to fulfill the criteria

On the other hand, if the only motive behind the war in Iraq in 2003 was to bring a regime change, then certainly this objective could have been approached by capturing or killing Saddam Hussain. Special forces could have been used for achieving this purpose. It also appears that this technique was actually tried by the Western forces, but it was found to be impossible. Therefore the question is why the Western politicians are not ready to talk about this in the public. The answer can be that these leaders apprehended that such techniques may not yet be accepted by the people. On these grounds, it appears that the public instincts regarding the Iraq war. To be right. It was indicated by the early 2004 polls that nearly half of the people of UK considered that this war was not justified. This conclusion was based on the huge burden of death , and suffering that it has imposed on the citizens of Iraq, who were already a lot of oppression. On the contrary, those who are in the favor of the war, gave the reason that this war was not to protect the oil or to remove the weapons of mass destruction (Ramazani, 2008). Similarly this war was not fought for the separation of international terrorism, but it took place to change the regime of a cruel dictator.. However the moral dilemma is still present, can it be considered as right to kill a large number of people only for saving them from a dictator. How can the rights of the people be protected when they are being infringed at the same time? On the other hand, the NATO bombing of the Serb aggressors in 1999 had received widespread approval from the public. Therefore, why this approval from the public was not present when the coalition was bombing Baghdad in 2003?

Therefore in the end, it can be said that the Iraq war of 2003, cannot be justified on the grounds like just war, traditional, Christian and Kantian grounds. Therefore only an attempt can be made to justify the board by optimistically applying the utilitarian principles. But at this point it needs to be noted that even the leading utilitarian were against this war. Under these circumstances, it can be concluded in this case that now the Western democracies want that their leaders should explain their policies rationally, and they should not only provide the facts to the people, but they should also provide a coherent moral argument in support of their actions. On the other hand, if humanitarian intervention or regime change was the reason behind the war, in such a case, it can be said that this operation was in the interest of police action taken to address the sadistic murderer. But if any police force from the civil world, while pursuing such laudable purpose could have killed, wounded or abused innocent citizens in the process, it would have to face strong criticism. The people would have said that the section was not justified morally, and it was not professional. Therefore, the action was not worth it and was out of proportion.

It can be said that the coalition had started the war with Saddam Hussain when they had not properly is certain the facts related with the weapons of mass destruction but they entered the war without a clear moral theory.

References

Butler, M. J. (2012) Selling A ‘Just’ War Framing Legitimacy, And US Military Intervention (London, Palgrave Macmillan, 28 

Dowd, C. (2006) ‘Unjust and Indefensible’, Commonweal, 133(17), 16-21.

Enemark, C. and Michaelsen, C. (2005) ‘Just War Doctrine and the Invasion of Iraq’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 51(4), 545-63.

Fiala, A. G. (2008) The just war myth: the moral illusions of war, Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield.

Fiala, A., (2008) The Just War Myth The Moral Illusions of War (New York, NY, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers   

Greeley, A. M. (2007) A stupid, unjust, and criminal war: Iraq, 2001-2007, Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books.

Gupta, S. (2008) ‘The Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike: Application and Implications During the Administration of President George W. Bush’, International Political Science Review, 29(2), 181-96.

Karoubi, M. T. (2004) Just or unjust war: international law and unilateral use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century, Aldershot, Hants, England; Burlington, VT, Ashgate.

Keohane, Robert. (2003) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Miller, R. B. (2008) ‘Justifications of the Iraq War Examined’, Ethics & International Affairs, 22(1), 43-67.

Nardin, Terry. (2002) ‘The Moral Basis for Humanitarian Intervention’, Ethics &International Affairs, 16(1), 11-27.

O’Keefe, M. P. and Coady, C. A. J. (2005) Righteous violence: the ethics and politics of military intervention, Carlton, Vic., Melbourne University Press.

Ramazani, R. K. (2008) ‘President Bush Deviates from Core American Principles in Middle East Policies ‘, Middle East Critique, 17(3), 209-21.

Ramsey, P (1992) “The Just War According to St Augustine” in Just War Theory, ed Jean Beth Elshtain (New York, NY, New York University Press, 8.l 

Regan, R. J. (1996) Just war: principles and cases, Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press.

Roth, K. (2006) ‘Was the Iraq War a Humanitarian Intervention?’, Journal of Military Ethics, 5(2), 84-92.

Silverstone, S. A. (2007) Preventive war and American democracy, New York, Routledge

Walzer, M., (1977) Just and Unjust Wars A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York, NY, Basic Books 52