Fernando R. Teson defends the United States’ invasion of
Iraq as a justifiable intervention to set Iraqis free from the tyrannous reign
of Saddam Hussein. He raises a good point that although the motives of the U.S.
weren’t to serve as an intervening state; their actions led the Iraqis to their
freedom from the dictator. The main aim was for the United States to find a
nuclear arsenal that could cause devastating destruction not to rescue the
people from tyranny. After the terrorist attacked, there had been great
discrepancies in the Bush administration’s public statement and the
intelligence community. The issue of possible ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda
was especially prone to the selective use of raw intelligence to make a public
case for war.
The war was conducted without UN Security Council approval
and sold to a doubtful public on the grounds that the country harbored the al-Qaida
terrorist organization and weapons of mass destruction. These all did a massive
damage to the fundamental makeup of international law and set back the
legitimacy of military intervention by the U.S. and other states. The
consequences of the war gave the Iraqis and unstable democracy and economy
while the unfound WMD damaged the U.S’ credibility.
The Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein but thousands
of U.S. soldiers are dead, several thousand wounded and traumatized, Iraqi
civilians who were killed, maimed and displaced not to mention the prejudice
against American culture post Abu Ghraib event. So much was sacrificed in the
name of the war; all for so little in return. The Iraq war also took a huge
chunk of the United State’s defense budget.
Iraq is slowly developing and rising back from its chaotic
uprising, yet its future is undetermined and shaky. It now has a representative
democracy, which faces some hiccup from time to time. , I would have to agree
with Nardin, that non intervention would have been preferred; it would have
been less traumatic for both sides. I believe that the people would have rebelled
even without assistance from the U.S because it is common in states with an
emerging economy, after being repressed and deluded by a ruler for so long,
they rise up to revolt and fight for their freedom, as it is in the Arab
Spring.
Does something like Abu Ghraib make a war unjust? This comes back to the distinction between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
ReplyDeleteThis is in the Jus in Bello act; the behavior in the prison was not acceptable even for a wartime conduct. It was not just Abu Ghraib, it was also Haditha, U.S. checkpoints arrest and so. It was the misconduct of the soldiers who were supposed to arrest only suspected terrorists. Their behavior calls into question the screening they went through when applying for the post. Did they have a sensitivity training, or were they just assigned to do their job? It was more than that, they had no clear mission, and some of these soldiers, I believe had psychological problems even before the war, and most Americans post 9/11 had stored a little resentment toward the terrorist. With this bias in mind, they are sent to rescue the Iraqis from their ruler.
DeleteIt is interesting that the actions of a few American military personnel - who were subsequently court-martialed - should suddenly be used taint the entire US military ...
DeleteAnd what is "sensitivity training"? And you think that if that had been duly part of the training program, then they'd think twice before abusing prisoners??
I think this makes a good point of the paternalistic nature that US foreign policy has had at times. i think alot of it comes down to power politics that are justified through humanitarian rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI like your description of the costs and consequences of the war which are, in my opinion, not sufficiently discussed and often misrepresented. Many often make the point that yes, the situation is grave in the aftermath but the war will be worth it in the long run as Iraq stabilizes and becomes an ally in the war on terror. I certainly do not agree with that far-reaching claim and believe that such an assessment can not be made at this point. As you have stated, Iraq's future is still uncertain and shaky, while the negative image of America has been clearly cemented in the minds of many.
ReplyDelete