Prior to this weeks reading, I don’t think I have ever heard the
words “War in Iraq” combined with “Humanitarian”. I never understood the war to be Humanitarian at all. I did not need to read Nardin’s piece
to be convinced that the war wasn’t humanitarian. Nevertheless, I find the article insightful; in particular I
found the idea that the War in Iraq has somehow damaged the opportunity for
future humanitarian intervention.
I find the whole idea to be self-defeating. The issue with those who make this claim
is that the United States’ primary concern when going into Iraq was not the
liberation of its people; and for this reason, these people are in uproar. They claim that by masking a
self-serving initiative, democratic prosperity, with a claim of humanitarian
intervention, the liberation of the Iraqi people, that the future possibility
of Humanitarian Intervention is at risk.
But why would it be at risk?
Unless as a result of the United States’ actions, everyone else can
longer see a potential target for humanitarian intervention when one
exists. If anything I believe that
nations will learn from the mistakes of the U.S. That even after all that transpired emotionally prior to the
invasion in Iraq, the United States has struggled tremendously to meet their
“self-serving agenda”. If nothing else, the United States handling of the War
in Iraq should clean up future humanitarian intervention. It should serve as an example of
economic and human injuries that may occur through masking a self-serving
agenda. I believe that recent events in Libya have bolstered the idea of human
intervention.
Even
with the result in Libya, I do agree that there needs to be an overall reassessment
of what a potential target for human intervention is. But this may not even be the most important aspect to
successful human intervention.
Something we all know is that people are more inclined to do something
when there is a personal incentive involved or at least when there is not penalty
for acting. Human intervention
cannot occur without some form of monetary flow. If a nation does not receive a benefit as a result of
spending money, why would they want to spend the money? Most people would say because it is the
right thing to do. And I wholeheartedly
agree with that. But as the saying
goes money doesn’t grow on trees.
It has to come from somewhere; and wherever it comes from it is most
certainly not an endless pit.
I like you was also shocked when doing the readings for this week; to find that some considered the United States actions in Iraq to be intervention. I believe that you are absolutely correct in saying that the actions of the United States in Iraq could serve as a reference to other UN countries as what could happen if they attempt something like the US did in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be right about interests but we should remember that interests are not given, they can be molded and changed. The trick is to take morality and make it the interests of states so that they are spending their money and receiving something.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that morality is a vehicle through which states push agenda. I mean that morality and conscious decisions stem from the need for power and survival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Iraq war was not a humanitarian intervention as many would defend it to be. The intent and conduct proves it to be a war, however different they would like to spin it. The mission was defined as a war on terrorism and Saddam. It was the lack of WMD that turned the mission around to be one that helped the Iraqis gain democracy.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that the disaster of the Iraq War might actually clean up humanitarian intervention is an interesting one, though I am not sure I am that optimistic. I think the reason why many raise the argument that the war actually threatens humanitarian intervention is because when the Iraq War is wrongfully pinned as "humanitarian", prominent Western leaders point to it in order to justify inaction and nonintervention in countries where it may be necessary. Thus, I do not think many leaders believe the war was humanitarian, but utilizing this narrative allows them to rid themselves of the burden of responsibility and duty to help others in dire circumstances. Taking a restrictive and sensitive context of humanitarian intervention and extending it to the War in Iraq certainly risks endangering a principle whose very viability is instrumental to saving lives.
ReplyDelete