I’ve heard a few people comment on Bush’s “ulterior motives” for going to war in Iraq.
I might even agree that those motives are likely to exist.
But do they matter? First, can we ever say with any certainty what a person’s motives are? Second, if we can, what relevance have those motives if two discrete motives can lead to the same act?
Julie
The question is if two discrete motives can indeed lead to the same act, or whether they do not, rather, lead to SIMILAR acts. I’d posit that a given motive produces a given set of possible results, and influences the probability of each of them happening.
Well, there is the old adage that even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. It is a common moral intuition that an intentional harm (such as murder) is considered to be much worse than an unintentional harm (such as manslaughter). In the case of war such distinctions become blurred but still seem to operate in a somewhat similar manner. We do in general distinguish between a war fought for purely evil reasons (like Germany did in WW II), and a war fought for liberation or defence (like the Allies in WW II).
Of course it is difficult to see the actual reasons operating in a specific case. Furthermore there is this thing in history that, after a long time, people may forget the motives and only look at the result and judge by that. It is not so clear whether Napoleon’s motives were so great (there was recent thread about him), but some of his actions have been happily kept long after he was gone (the great French statute law, the Code Civil, as a prime example).
But that’s intent, not motive.
Julie
Hmm, you’re right. There is a distinction, but I interpreted your OP as meaning both. Aren’t the intentions (i.e. goals) with having a war nearly completely determined by the motives (i.e. desires) to start the war? Or am I missing something here?
I’ll just think it over. Please continue the debate without me.
See how these scenarios play out on CNN.
Scenario #1:
Bush: “We’re invading Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.”
Scenario #2:
Bush: “We’re invading Iraq to make sure that we have their vast reserves of petroleum under control.”
Scenario #3:
Bush: “We’re invading Iraq to make sure that we have their vast reserves of priceless antiquities and World Heritage Sites under control.”
Scenario #4:
Bush: “We’re invading Iraq because during the 1990s, we developed all kinds of kewl military technology, and the Taliban thing was over so quick, we didn’t get to hardly use half of it, and we wanna see how it works in real life, especially the e-bomb, we’d like to know if that works, and this is the first chance we’ve had to use it on anybody.”
Scenario #5:
Bush: “We’re invading Iraq because war is good for business, and the U.S. economy could use a shot in the arm.”
I don’t think you’re missing anything; I think I just disagree about how much motives influence intent. Or, more accurately, about how many motives can have the same intent.
Let’s say that Bush’s goal, his intent, is to remove Hussein from power.
There could be lots of motives. He doesn’t like Hussein, or he thinks Hussein makes him look bad, or he wants to distract Americans from the economy, or he believes Hussein is a genuine threat. (I’m sure there are other potential motives, too.)
It seems that many on both sides think discussing or ferreting out these reasons is important. But if the stated goal (remove Hussein from power) is the real goal, then shouldn’t the argument just be about whether that’s a goal worth pursuing?
Julie
Motives need to be discussed because they will come into play.
Removing Saddam from power is “good” regardless of the motive but motive colours all the subtle non-headline grabbing machinations of the situation. Who are we maneuvering to replace the current regime and who in the current regime will remain? What exactly is going to happen to all that oil?
Also having clearly stated goals engenders trust in the stakeholders. The US must make clear to nearby states that this is not just an oil grab. I suggest announcing that the operation will be turned over to UN control at earliest possible. Otherwise it will have that much more trouble during next years liberation invasion of [Mods please fill in appropriate country here in 2004]
Thanks jsgoddess, you made it perfectly clear what the difference is and why it is relevant. I was just being dense.
Now to reply to your question: from what I gather the thing there are varying positions questioning the war regarding motives:
[list=1]
[li] starting a war is never allowed even for a benign motive,[/li][li] starting a war may be allowed for the right motives but the precise conditions have not been fulfilled (for example, insufficient evidence for presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, no UN resolution),[/li][li] starting a war is allowed for the right motives, but it is questionable whether these motives are actually present,[/li][li] starting a war is allowed for the right motives and these are in fact present (and/or the conditions have been met).[/li][/list=1]
Your question appears only to address (3) and (4).
We may still be worried about the actual motives, even if the effect would be the same, because we might be worried whether the same motive might in the future be cause for starting another war.