In 2003, the United States backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Poland and Denmark, spearheaded and launched the invasion of Iraq. President Bush put forth the following the key justifications for the invasion:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [1]
Various other justifications, including weapons of mass destruction and securing the freedom of the Iraqi people from a dictator, were used. These later culminated into the Bush doctrine which expounds: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[2]
The ethical dilemma that this issue poses is the controversy of whether preventive war in this case is considered a just cause for war. Wars involve the loss of human lives and invoke the moral question of freedom and sanctity of life. Hence, ethical reasoning is needed to be applied to the idea of preemption, which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. This paper aims to show that the use of preemptive strikes as justification for an invasion of Iraq is morally wrong and unjust.
The Westphalia idea of just wars is based upon the ideas of rights and freedom. The Just War Theory (JWT) sets up criteria for a justified war. Firstly, only a legitimate authority may declare war. It is commonly assumed and accepted that the government is a justified authority entrusted with the power to declare war. Hence, the invasion of Iraq fulfills the first criteria.
The second criterion requires a just cause. Michael Walzer proposed the idea of “legalist paradigm,”[3] and relies upon the “domestic analogy,”[4] and rights of political communities. As such, aggression is only justified if territorial integrity and political sovereignty of a nation is violated. In the case of the Iraq invasion, neither was the US’s territorial integrity nor political sovereignty violated by the Iraq. Therefore, the use of preemptive strike in this circumstance was unjustified because prevention is a vague and insufficient reason to go to war based on the just cause criterion. An analogy that rebukes preventive strike in this invasion as a justification is that if we adopt a view point of a terrorist. If terrorists feel that their way life is being threatened by another society, based on the way preemptive strike was use in the Iraq invasion, they too have the right to declare war. International chaos will ensue if this reasoning is iterated throughout the world.
The third criterion is that war must be declared and conducted with the right intention.Although the initial justification for the invasion was the threat that Iraq posed due to their possession of weapons of mass destruction, recent statements and secret document leaks by the British reveal that this was a fabricated justification.[5] If the allegation of Iraq possessing WMDs were founded, this criteria would be fulfilled for the intent of the war would be deemed to be right. However, the ease of which information was fabricated to support a preemptive strike against Iraq showed that this form of justification did not stand the test of truthfulness and is unreliable.
The fourth criterion requires that war must always be a last resort. It was evident that there were still other avenues of redress, such as economic sanctions and talks, which were not used. Therefore, the Iraq war fails to qualify for the “last resort” criterion. Preemptive strike implies that all other non-physical means have not yet been exhausted. Because the other party has not yet struck but is only a threat, avenues for redress and conciliation of differences through means other than war are still available. This, therefore, renders the use of preemptive wars as being immoral.
The next three criteria of reasonable hope of success, proportional and a just cause pursued by a just means are largely subjective and dependant on individual situations. Without the use of hindsight and assuming the authenticity of the threat that Saddam Hussein and his country posed, the Iraq war will have fulfilled these three criteria. Despite the ambiguity of the last three criteria, the just wartheory is a stringent set of criteria that requires total fulfillment before war can be justified. Since, preemption fulfills only four of the seven criterions, the use of it as a justification for war is invalid and immoral.
Detractors of Just Wars Theory (JWT) often argue that adoption of the legalist paradigm reflects the most limiting version of JWT. It must however be noted that JWT’s central dogma is that war is waged to achieve peace. Hence, by using the legalist paradigm, unnecessary wars may be prevented and supports the idea of the sanctity of life.
Analysis and justification using Utilitarian and Kantian ethics seem to initially undermine the argument that preemptive strikes are unjustified. However, further scrutiny will allow us to see that both counter-arguments in fact augment the just wars theory’s stance on preemptive strikes.
First, the Utilitarian argument would present its case for preemptive strikes on the basis of overall net happiness. Based on the Iraq war, the initial aim of the war was the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and also to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people under the regime of Saddam Hussein. The presence of WMD would allude to the fact that millions of lives could be lost if these weapons were unleashed. Therefore, it can be said that by waging a war to prevent the irresponsible use of WMD neutralizes the potential negative unhappiness, hence aiding in the justification of the war. Additionally, the freedom of Iraqis from Saddam’s oppressive regime would “ameliorate suffering and promote more pleasure or happiness.”[6] Hence, it is once again justified to use preemptive strikes on Iraq based on the above considerations.
However, it should be noted that Utilitarianism requires the consideration of ALL parties involved. The Iraq war has claimed the lives of many allied and Iraqi soldiers; this contributes negatively to the overall happiness. Consequently, families and friends of these fallen soldiers are also negatively affected. Of the many facets of Iraqi life, healthcare has since declined to 1950s levels.[7] Additionally, soldiers on both sides suffer from illnesses such as post-war trauma syndrome. Since it is almost impossible to take into account the effect of preemptive strike and more specifically the Iraq war on every single human being, the Utilitarian argument is ambiguous and for this reason, can neither provide sufficient support for the justification of preemptive strikes in Iraq nor detract the JWT argument.
Ignoring the additional post-invasion information that derails the justification for war, it may be seen that the invasion had the right intention. Based on Kantian ethics, the preemptive strike may be seen as having the right intention (WMDs, links to Al Qaeda and liberation of the Iraqi people), it was also the duty of other states to act upon Iraq. Closer scrutiny, however, shows that the invasion is not in accordance with Kantian principles.
First, the categorical imperative requires us “never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”[8] If the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq posed a threat and therefore should be neutralized before they can launch an attack, the maxim would then be, “If I feel threatened by another country, I can attack them first even if they have not stated their intention to attack us.” Such a maxim is not only unable to be universalized; it is illogical and detrimental to the ideals of peace and sanctity of life. Moreover, the use of soldiers both allied and Iraqi as a means to an end is unacceptable according to Kantian theory. Kantian theory, therefore, supports the idea the use of preemptive strikes in Iraq as being unjust and even immoral.
Despite discounting the post war revelations, the counterpoints were unable to justify the use of preemptive strikes in Iraq. Factoring in the post invasion findings, it should be noted that revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation.[9] Additionally, three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.[10] The surfacing of such evidence contradicts the initial reasons (WMDs and terrorism) for a preemptive strike on Iraq. More pronounced and truthful evidence should have been used to justify the use of preemptive strikes in Iraq. Sound assessments and justification should not and cannot be made based on contradictory evidence. As per JWT, preemptive strikes on Iraq should not have been used as it was based on hazy evidence and the intent was hence distorted. Closer monitoring, talks, sanctions and greater truthfulness should have been used before deciding on war.
The use of preemptive strike on Iraq bears great future ramifications. If nations do not do abide by the JWT that they so strongly advocate but instead misuse it for self interest, there would then be no basis for peace. In this particular war, preemptive strike was unjust for it did not come close to fulfilling the JWT. Despite the JWT being a stringent morality check, it is key that we abide by it as war concerns the happiness of other humans and also helps justify the apparent disregard for sanctity of life.
The passing of a fellow midshipman invoked thoughts of life in me. It dawned upon me that despite mankind's glorious achievements in the field of science, arts, politics, do not be disillusioned that we have sovereignty over all things. The dais on which we often heap ourselves with self-accolades is only but a mirage built on pride and overly dignified self worth. If we do not live everyday like it's our last, we may live to regret when the day comes. From ashes to ashes, the only thing that remains on earth when we pass is the legend that we have created. I'm glad that I have found my calling and the only thing that is fair in this world is that we are all given 1 life, 24 hours a day, so make the most out of it. More thoughts tomorrow when I have more time....
This is my first update in a zillion years! Just got back from UPenn Model United Nations Conference where I represented Georgia (the country) in the GA in Special political and decolonization committee. It was great discussing the Palestine issue. How I wished that resolutions could be passed with such efficiency and ease in the real world. Perhaps when that day comes, I will be out of job. Words of wisdom from my ethics instructor, " The military is the only organization that works ourselves out of a business." How true, however, sometimes war is not in the name of peace. Standby on thurdays for my post of my paper: An unjust war: Iraq 2003. Meanwhile the soups curse has struck again.. lol
Sometimes I wished I was at a regular college, but I chose a military one of my own free will and accord. Everything has a purpose and I place my trust in the Lord and His plan. Despite the frequent wandering of my mind and doubts that surface, there is no higher human calling then service to a nation that gave me my opportunities and a place to call home. As my tango wing PC said on the first day of OCS: " you are not here to try to defend the whole singapore, you are first and foremost here to defend the very bit of land you stand on and those who cannot do the same for themselves." For PM and country!!
The long anticipated thanksgiving break brought much reprieve from academy life. Boston was wonderful and retail therapy does work I must say, though the receipts collected would normally result in a depression greater then before. It's kinda like viagara , shopping provides a moment of pleasure but after which you'll become flaccid and down(in more ways then one lol ) again.
Apart from the shopping, sight seeing was an eye opener, the Victorian buildings blended with modern american architecture created a rather amazing visual fest. I finally made it to the school of my dream, MIT, albeit it was just visiting, haha. I'm probably too dumb for it anyway.
At times, I ponder over why Singaporeans are so eager to migrate, it really puzzles me. Yes we may be monolithic in certain aspects, but I can't imagine myself living in a society any less efficient. And if you are one of those that joined the facebook group "I want to hit slow people on the back of their head", then you'll probably understand what I mean.. there are just so many more examples, but I'm too tired to rant on... lol
Sometimes I wonder when people declare that "we will hunt down and kill those terrorist", if they really think that the death of terrorist would resolve this complex issue. Maybe we should stop being so superficial and see that it is not a man called Osama or an organization like Al Qaeda that we are fighting , but it is a contest of human faith and sometimes even 'Godly' interpretations.
It then brings us to the dilemma of whether greater violence is the solution to violence. Has anyone thought if love can eradicate these differences and maybe that if an intellectual paradigm shift would to occur in government throughout the world, it would provide for a long term solution? If we were to step out of out from behind our tinted eyes and view the world from the terrorist point of view, perhaps it will begin to dawn upon us that the same innate human instinct is prevalent in all mankind and transcends race, language, and religion. With that being said, I do not condone any form of terrorism but neither do I believe that brute force is the solution to this global problem.... to be continued...
Enough cognitive dumping... I so glad that thanksgiving is just round the corner.. whew! Can't wait to see boston.
