Rios Brian Brian Ros Prof. Corrin Prof. McKnight HU 202/ SS 202 March 19, 2008 Team X
Page 1
4/10/2008
Is the Iraq War a Just War, or Just a War?
"Why we fight?" is a question with no clear and simple answer. At first we were
led to believe that we were fighting in order to disarm Iraq, and stop their ruthless leader Saddam Hussein. But, as it turns out Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. This current war is not the "war against terrorism," it is an unjust war that is in the interests of those in command. The readings "Just War Theory," by Douglas F. Lackey, and "No End of Lesson: And the Nature of Moral Choice in Foreign Policy," by David Armstrong, reflect on whether a war is just or not. Using these two readings one can determine that the Iraq War was an unjust war and that the reason for taking action was wrong. The United States' foreign policy historically has been one of intervention and action. The current Bush administration is no exception, however instead of fighting Communism or Nazism, we are fighting "Terrorism." The events of September 11, 2001, gave us a reason to fight , however we never found Osama Bin Laden, instead we focused our efforts on an enemy not involved in 9/11, and that was Iraq and Saddam Hussein. One of the many criticism of this policy is that the President George W. Bush
Brian Rios
Page 2
4/10/2008
abandoned his campaign promise of no nation building . During his campaign Bush criticized this notion, yet during his two terms in office he has used it in regards to Iraq . The Just War Theory is divided into two criteria jus ad bellum, and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum are the rules that govern the justification of war , while jus in bello are the rules that govern just conduct in war. If one were to go down a list of the principles Jus Ad Bellum one can determine that the Iraq War is an unjust war. The first principle of Jus Ad Bellum is that war most be waged by a competent authority. I do believe the United States has a system where a competent authority can be in power, and make the right decisions. However, I do believe that the current Bush Administration is not a competent authority, and have not made the right decisions for this nation, biggest mistake being this Iraq War. The Second principle is that "the use of fore must be directed to an identifiable political result ." This would go against the idea of a "War against terrorism," because there is no such type of war, because the enemy is not a concrete one, the enemy is the idea of terrorism. The Third principle is that a war should be fought for the right intentions . According to Douglas Lackey leaders " may not act primarily or solely for the right , but they must have some reason, producible on request for thinking that they are acting for the right" (301). The reason that are President has given us is that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" (Bush). The American public was sold on
Brian Rios
Page 3
4/10/2008
the fact that Iraq was a threat; no one considered the possibility of our government lying to us. It was a lie there was no threat in Iraq because there were no weapons. The Duefler report, a CIA report on the weapons of mass destruction, was released in October of 2004, it stated that Iraq had no WMDs, and that Saddam had terminated Iraq's nuclear program since the Gulf War in 1991. The fact that the government lied to its people also violates the final moral charge mentioned in Armstrong's "No End of a Lesson: Vietnam and the Nature of Moral Choice in Foreign Policy." Lying has always been in our government, from Watergate to today there will always be secrecy, and manipulation it is a part of the government . Since the government lied to us of the reason for the war , than what's the real reason. The documentary film "Why we Fight," gives many answers to this question. However they mainly focus on the military industrial complex, and how this country's politicians rely on it . The military industrial complex is a business like any other, and it provides many jobs and factories for people and in order to not lose popular support they support military spending. The oil in Iraq is most probably the most believable cause for the United States to fight in this Iraq War . Our Vice-President is more like a government contractor, since he is involved with businesses such as Halliburton for oil, and RGB for military supplies. This could have possibly affected the decision making of this country, and may prove some corruption in the White House. The Fourth principle of Jus Ad Bellum is the need for a just cause for military force. The only just cause for war is self-defense. This could be true of the War in
Brian Rios
Page 4
4/10/2008
Afghanistan, and the search for Bin Laden, but not of the Iraq War. There is no just cause for the Iraq war because we are following "Bush doctrine," which follows the idea of a preemptive war. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America states that, "we must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and (V). friends" The Final principle jus ad bellum is the rule of proportionality, "if the just cause can be achieved by some means other than war , then war for that just cause is not morally justified" (Lackey, 303). I believe this Iraq War was not necessary, and is in violation of this principle. The jus in bello principles are the principle of necessity, the military principle of proportionality, and the principle of noncombatant immunity. The principle of necessity follows that "military forces should cause no more destruction than is strictly necessary to achieve their objective." The United States have had a dark past of breaking this principle, for example in the Vietnam War they had the atrocities in My Lai. In the Iraq War the innocent blood of civilians is being spilt . The military principle of proportionality states, "certain objectives should be ruled out of consideration on the grounds that too much destruction would be caused in obtaining them" (Lackey, 305). I believe that the whole war in Iraq has been too destructive, and that there are other diplomatic matters or solutions to "disarm Iraq."
Brian Rios
Page 5
4/10/2008
The principle of non-combatant immunity " is that civilian life and property should not be subjected to military force" (Lackey, 305). The United States is in clear violation of this in the Iraq War. The bombings that have taken place in Iraq have taken the lives of many innocent civilians including children. According to an article in the Washington Post , an October 17 U.S. bombing of Baghdad is allegedly responsible for the death of 25 people, including 18 children. All these deaths create are more enemies, they are not only a violation of just war theory, but a violation of human rights. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism not become terrorists as well. The David Armstrong article also reflects the ideas of former Arkansas Senator William Fulbright . Fulbright offers a critique to the "arrogance of power." He states
"power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to
the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor." (Armstrong, 89). He also believes in humanism, "compromising an attention to human needs, magnamity, an understanding of cultural differences and an understanding of irrational elements " (Armstrong, 89). He believes there are two Americas, the Lincoln America, and the Teddy Roosevelt America. "One is self-critical, the other self-righteous... one is judicious, and the other arrogant in the use of great power" (Armstrong , 89). He would prefer Lincoln's America, because he'd rather have his country be his friend than a foe, these are similar ideas to those of Machiavelli. What this means is that he'd rather have his country be
"the Fox," rather than being "the Lion."
Brian Rios
Page 6
4/10/2008
According to Charles Lewis, a member of the Center of Public Integrity, "the history of the United States has been a constant struggle between democracy and capitalism...and clearly capitalism is winning" ("Why we Fight "). I agree with this because this is the perfect way to characterize the decision making of leaders , even when looking at foreign affairs. I believe leaders of the United States have based their decisions of going to war for what they feel is best for the country, and its growth. The promotion of capitalism is something the United States has always promoted, and with every country that joins the capitalist system the more wealth the United States will receive . The struggle with democracy is that of the public opinion of the people , and what they majority of the people really want and need. Currently the Iraq War, has put the United States in an economic recession. The government is spending too much on the military industrial complex, and are forgetting of the people. Today, March 19, 2008 marks the 5th year anniversary of the first attack against Iraq. This war has gone on for way too long, and even if President Bush accomplished his "personal goal" of capturing Saddam, it has not been worth the amount of lives that have been lost . The United States has to learn from its' past , and not get so involved with foreign affairs. This is an unjust war because it violates the principles of War theory and it is even an illegal War, deemed by the Secretary General of the United Nations at the time, Kofi Annan, who said, ""I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal" (BBC).
Brian Rios
Page 7
4/10/2008
I honestly still do not understand why the United States feels it has to police the World, which is the job of the United Nations. I also do not fully comprehend why the United States feels the need to disarm the world, each nation should be able to defend themselves. I find this somewhat hypocritical in the part of the United States, because it is the only nation to actually use a weapon so powerful, the H-bombs of WWII dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The United States should stop trying to be
"Machiavelli's Lion" so often and try to be more like the "Fox."