The defense of the two Humanitarian Rationales

Fernando R. Teson says that the war in Iraq can be rationalized through two “humanitarian” ways. The first way is what he calls the narrow rationale, which states  that the war was fought to overthrow a tyrant. The second way is called the, grand rationale which states that the war was fought as part of a strategy to defend the United States by establishing a number of democratic regimes in the Middle East and throughout the world through peaceful means, if possible, but by force if it is deemed necessary. Many critics disagree with Tenson’s narrow and grand rational, one of which includes Terry Nardin . Tenson responds in an article named “of tyrants and empires”; in his responds to Nardin’s criticism to both his narrow and grand rationales. In my opinion Tenson successfully refutes Nardins claims against his narrow rationale but unsuccessfully refutes Nardin’s claims against his grand rationale.

            Nardin speaks of Tensons claims as the intention to overthrow a tyrant is a humanitarian intention and that any war waged with that intention counts as a humanitarian intervention, provided that it also intends to replace the tyrannical government. Nardin goes on to say that intervention is called for by the specific crimes committed (or permitted) by a regime, not the character of that regime (Nardin Humanitarian Imperialism, pg 23). Tenson refutes Nardin’s claims by giving the example of a military that overthrows a government, takes away all the people rights,  controls the media, the schools, and the universities. The military also targets people that disagree with the military and kills the leaders along with about two thousand people a year. The People hate the regime, but the prospects of peaceful or violent return to democracy are unlikely, because the regime has military might. In this situation it does not satisfy the strict standards set by Nardin (Teson, Of Tyrants and Empires, pg 28).There are no massive killings, no extermination camps, no genocide, no ethnic cleansing; the people deserve a right to seek help from outside the country. The example shows how humanitarian intervention could be necessary even though it does not meet the normal regulations for outside intervention that Nardin speaks of in her critic of Tenson’s writing.

             Nardin states that Tenson’s grand rationale changes the focus of debate from concern for another countries citizens’ rights, security, and well-being to concern for what is in the best interests of the intervening state and its citizens. Nardin says that “Unlike humanitarian intervention, which aims to protect other people, the American strategy of "spreading democracy" is aimed at protecting us”(Nardin, Humanitarian Imperialism, pg 23).  Tenson  rebuttals by saying that he suggest that whether the United States had a good motive is irrelevant in  justifying the intervention, the United States' motive for invading Iraq was not obviously wrong. Tenson does not make a compelling argument as to why his view point is correct as opposed to Nardin’s argument. Tenson does not go into detail of why he feels that the U.S motive for invading Iraq is irrelevant, and because of that I feel that he has unsuccessfully defended his grand rationale.