A Critique of Teson's Claims

            In my opinion, Teson's attempt to justify the Iraq War as "humanitarian" signifies precisely what I find to be flawed within American foreign policy today. My critique of his work mirrors that of Nardin, whom I wholeheartedly agree with. First and foremost, Teson draws a distinction between intent and motive, claiming that if America's intent was to topple Hussein and reconstruct and democratize Iraq, then its intent and the resulting action can be characterized as just despite ulterior motives, which he claims are irrelevant in making a value judgment about the act itself. Assuming that Teson is right in this particular matter of the Iraq War, I find his reasoning to be flawed. The act and the underlying intent with which it is judged may indeed be just; however, one cannot make the leap of logic that solely because an act is JUST it is necessarily humanitarian in nature. Furthermore, Teson indicates that "politicians will never have pure humanitarian motives" but yet that still does not detract from the humanitarian nature of the Iraq War.  Though it is true that pure humanitarian motives are rare, if existent, I think the premise of the war being of humanitarian nature can still be questioned on the grounds that a war which is not guided by predominantly humanitarian goals (and the Iraq War certainly was not) will always run a grave risk of endangering human rights and committing further atrocities, which is somewhat self-defeating in terms of Teson's argument.

             In addition, Teson's piece bears no mention of American foreign policy towards Iraq from the 1980's onward, which I believe weakens his argument tremendously as the perception of a humanitarian war definitely withers at the examination of the past. This relationship entails providing Iraq with intelligence, loans and commodity credits amidst its chemical warfare against Iran in the 1980s and the unfathomable mass murdering of its own people during the same period. Why didn't the U.S. step in back then? This surely casts doubt on the humanitarian intent of the Iraq War, regardless of Teson's arguments that even though the worst violence was over, Hussein was still a threatening tyrant. Furthermore, if the Iraq War was a humanitarian war, then why hadn't the U.S. insisted on more legal actions within the ICC or other non-intervention alternatives? I do not believe that intervention was a pressing or even a 'last' resort at the point in time when the Iraq War happened. I am therefore not convinced by Teson's arguments as I find that the Iraq War was a political and economic venture, with the fall of a brutal dictator as a simple byproduct. The toying around with the "humanitarian" label for the Iraq War regrettably taints this type of intervention for future dire cases where non-intervention might be inexcusable.