This was my Ethics term paper, which I got a A from. My T.A stated that the only problem he had was with my Hobbesian approach but otherwise excellant...here it is. So essentially how can the Iraq war be defended morally, when you have three prominent ethical theories disaproving of the war (unless you take Hobbesian theory and change my argument which one can), and with the Pope, and all other major religions agreeing that this war is immoral...under what ethical circumstances can this war be considered moral? I don't want to hear "because whatever America does is good" bull shit, I want real reasons.
The only way the Iraq War can be defended morally is if you accept the late and rather lame excuse given by the Bush Administration that it was acting on the best intelligence that it had at the time. It has become pretty clear to everyone that pre-2003 intelligence was carefully cherry-picked, and that outright fabrication was used to flesh out the parts that seemed weak. There was no threat that justified the war. In addition, the negative argument can be made. If our government wishes to claim that the Iraq War was justified because of the threat to national security and the repression of the Iraqi people, then it seems to me that there are at least a dozen other candidates that merit equal if not even more imperative treatment. Saudi Arabia springs to mind. If the U.S. government is ignoring such other examples, then it undermines its own ethical position. Suppose for the moment that the U.S. had the purest motives in invading Iraq. Let's say that the U.S. really wanted to reduce the threat to its security while liberating the people, and that there was no other hidden agendae. In that case the most reasonable course of action would have been - 1. An announcement that the U.S. is coming to Iraq to arrest Saddam and his specifically named top hundred henchmen for delivery to the Internation War Crimes Tribunal. Any resistance to this effort will be met with instant destruction. 2. An interim ruling council of moderate Iraqis, Iraqi expats and regional representatives will run the country for one year. Their single objective will be to maintain peace while creating a parliamentary structure in preparation for elections. 3. Internal security will be maintained by existing police forces with the support and oversight of American air and ground forces. The U.S. will provide humanitarian aid in concert with the Red Crescent and other NGOs. Disarmament will be the main goal of the security forces - let the people keep their AKs and other sidearms but pick up everything else. 4. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission will be set up in Baghdad to begin the process of sorting out the crimes of the Ba' athist regime. 5. A hard timetable is set for the exit of the last American ground forces - one year after the election. To me, this would have been moral. Would it have satisfied the three models you refer to in your paper? It may not have actually worked, but it would have given the Iraqi people their best shot at recasting their nation in a democratic mold. It might have also induced other nations to join in, and had it worked it might even have set the stage for a new world order based on actual justice. Now, the U.S. government is staffed by people who are presumably a lot smarter than I am. The simple fact that they have fucked things up so badly indicates to me that they are either incompetent or else wanted things to turn out exactly the way they have. Either way they have no claim whatsoever to ethical behavior.
Of course it was immoral.... It was immoral to dismount a regime that murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, It was immoral to destroy an army that had invaded three of it's neighbors without cause, It was immoral to bring down the perpetrators of the biggest monetary fraud in the history of the world, ...and in the process, to starve thousands of its own children for whom the Oil-for-Food program was designed to help, It was immoral to imprison the leader who bribed and corrupted the United Nations for its own despotic purposes, ...etc,...etc,...etc, Yes! Of course it was immoral to do those things. History will judge.
It was immoral to dismount a regime that murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, Of which the US supported...so the US is even MORE immoral. It was immoral to destroy an army that had invaded three of it's neighbors without cause Then why did the US give Saddam Anthrax and loans to pay for those wars? Why did the US ignore Saddam's peace offerings in 1990 to pull of Kuwait? Sorry but the cause was for Western oil interests, Saddam was just a puppet that went to far. It was immoral to bring down the perpetrators of the biggest monetary fraud in the history of the world Enron? and in the process, to starve thousands of its own children for whom the Oil-for-Food program was designed to help Actually the UN stated that in Iraq the food was generally well distributed, of course who was dealing with Saddam and this program some American companies as well. It was immoral to imprison the leader who bribed and corrupted the United Nations for its own despotic purposes What exaclty did Saddam get out of it honestly except money? Yes! Of course it was immoral to do those things. History will judge. History has judged, the US had no right to invade a largely defenceless nation who posed no threat to the US in any way shape or form. History has already pretty decided that the American occupation (which is illegal) will end up another American disaster not unlike Vietnam. Stay as long as you want boys, history has already made its verdict.
