Iraq War: likely to relieve more suffering that it causes?

Great Debates
1

If you believe that there is such a thing as a just war then one of the requirements of a just war must surely be that it will relieve more suffering than it causes. I think I read a list of preconditions of a just war suggested in “Just and Unjust Wars” and this was one of the preconditions.

Iraq sounds like an awful place. The policies of Sadam’s regime and the consequent embargos etc. mean that ordinary people are deprived of basic human and political rights, proper medical care and so on. There is certainly much suffering in Iraq including many otherwise unnecessary deaths.

Would war with Iraq be likely to satisfy the condition of relieving more suffering that it causes?

Of course, that depends on estimates of the effects of having a war as against not having one. A war may kill many civilians, perhaps hundreds. If Sadam uses weapons of mass destruction it could easily turn into thousands.

On the other hand, not having a war would leave in place a ruthless regime. It could easily last another 20 years, maybe longer. How many people will suffer and die at the hands of this regime, largely unnoticed by the outside world?

I am not suggesting that to “relieve more suffering than it causes” is the only requirement of a war, but is this requirement likely to be met in this case.

2

On the other hand, not having a war would leave in place a ruthless regime. It could easily last another 20 years, maybe longer. How many people will suffer and die at the hands of this regime, largely unnoticed by the outside world?

My understanding is that the main concern is how many will suffer from a ruthless regime armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and no compunctions about using them in the outside world. Sad as it sounds, we’re not nearly as concerned about what oppressive dictators do to their own people as we are about what they might do to others beyond their borders.

Your question probably defies a factual answer, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets moved to IMHO or Great Debates.

3

This is well into Great Debates territory, so I’ll move this thread over that way.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

4

No

The last war killed civilians well into the tens of thousands.
On the Mile of Death Allied aircrafts killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers, RETREATING from Kuwait, a war crime.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html

The war and following sanctions saw to it that people began starve and easily treatable illnesses.
http://www.jamiat.org.za/al-jamiat/v38iraq.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/
http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/MonDec201100031999.asp
You are always pointing out that Saddam used WMD on his own people, the Kurds, but you fail to mention that Turkey has been slaughtering them for 20 years now, and probably killed more than Saddam. Which nation is the only one who has used nuclear weapons on civilians? USA, twice. Who carpet bombed Dresden at the final days of WW2, even though it was known that these were refugee centers, with a minimum garrison? USA. An estimate of 400 000 people were murdered in these bombings. Dresden had been an Allied-declared sanctuary until this time of February 13 1945.
http://www.alchemists.com/visual_alchemy/manifesto/story.html

There is no way you will spare lives by starting a war.

5

Actually, the troops in Kuwait on the Highway of Death, while it was overkill, could be justified in that the Iraqi troops were setting afire Kuwaiti oilfields left and right.

As for:

“You are always pointing out that Saddam used WMD on his own people, the Kurds, but you fail to mention that Turkey has been slaughtering them for 20 years now, and probably killed more than Saddam.”

This is just silly. Maximum estimates of Kurds killed since the early '80s by Turkey is about 20,000. Minimum estimates for Kurds killed in a two year timeframe by Saddam is 100,000. That’s a disparity of 70,000 between the maximum of Turkey and minimum of Iraq. Actual credible estimates in the number of Kurds murdered in Al-Anfal exceeds 150,000. At least 7,000 of them were gassed to death, while more than 900,000 Iraqi Kurds were left homeless.

Finally, for your references to WWII:

-The administration has changed
-The doctrines have changed
-Five decades have elapsed
-Technology has advanced and become more precise

Therefore, the allusions are essentially irrelevant to any discussion on a modern attack on Iraq.

6

Err, disparity of 80,000. No wonder I was never too bright in math.

7

Not even if it leads to a more stable and democratic state?

Killing soliders attempting to surrender is a war crime. Killing soldiers who are retreating is not because at some point, you may have to fight those soldiers and vehicles again when they reorganize.

So do you think we should have been involved in WWII?
I guess the question is this: Is it better that a few thousand die over a short period of time to install a stable government then for many thousands more to die and live in constant fear under a brutal dictator for several decades?

8

US didn’t start WW2 so it doesn’t compare. I actually am glad they entered it.

Killing soldiers retreating under a white flag is a war crime, and these were not only soldiers, there were civilians mixed in with them.

What were the objectives? Liberating Kuwait.
How are the objectives completed? Withdrawal of Iraqi troops or removal of Iraqi troops by military force.

If they are already withdrawing, why eliminate a routing force.

Quote:
“The enemy, Washington, says there must be a regime change. But the Iraqi public cannot possibly revolt. Outsiders say it’s up to officers within the military to spark a rebellion. But even if they do, what choices would the Iraqi public have? Bloody purges would invariably follow a coup, and the authoritarian military style of new leadership may well continue under US oversight.” – Barbara Nimri Aziz

link:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147k.htm

A stable government would mean, one who is supported by and amiable to the USA. People are afraid of what will replace the regime, for a good reason. I think everyone agrees that Saddam must be removed, but not everyone agrees on the means of removal.

9

In all fairness, the US didn’t really start WWI. The Japanese and the Germans had something to do with that.

Having said that, I don’t buy the notion that sanctions kill Iraqis. If Mr Hussein was truly concerned about the well-being of his people, he would use the money currently used for military spending toward alleviating people.

If I am fired from a job, and am placed on welfare, would it be the government’s fault that my kids are starving if I spend all my money on drugs? Of course not.

10

I would ask you, hlujarn, what do you think that an effective, guaranteed way for the world to get rid of Mr Hussein’s regime would be?

Obviously, he doesn’t bow to diplomatic pressure.
Obviously, past coup attempts haven’t worked.
Obviously, uprisings in the past have been quashed.
Obviously, war = bad.

What to do?

11

I honestly don’t know.

Iran is making progress towards true democracy. How did they do it? They started out as total dicks.

12

So you don’t know how to deal with Saddam but you know that war is wrong? It’s a good idea to state that you have no clue on how to solve a problem. Well, maybe it is not.

Also, Iran is different than Iraq. Iran is a theocracy while Iraq is ran by a despot. Young people in Iran are trying to change the policies in Iran. They have some freedom.

In Iraq Saddam kills anyone who disagrees with him. There is a big difference between the two countries.

Slee

13

Well I don’t pretend to be an expert on Iran, but IIRC, the Shah was disposed and replaced by the Aytohla Khomani in the 70s in a popular uprising. While not really friendly towards the US, I think we can all agree that a government representitive of the people is better than one that is not.
Here’s the deal. Pointing out annecdotal instances of controvertial US military actions or policy making decisions is absolutely pointless. One, because hindsite is always 20/20. And two, because that does not address any of the issues at hand. Sadaam is an evil man in charge of an evil regime. There is no doubt about that. The question is, what to do about it? Crying “war is wrong” isn’t an answer. Unless you want to wait for him to die of old age (like Castro) he is going to need to be removed by force. The Iraqi people aren’t really in a postion to do it. The UN is as impotent as ever. So once again, it falls on the USA. Now I guess we can go about our business and leave the rest of the world to fix itself. I just can’t help but feel that if we do that, we are inviting another situation like WWII where we will be forced to act when war once again comes to our shores.

14

When I see someone is about to go skinny-dipping in the Piranha River, my primary obligation is to yell “Don’t!!”. Perhaps later we can discuss alternatives, maybe go bowling, have a nice cuppa tea. Clear and present danger, and all that.

15

I don’t think you can prove a single one of these statements:

  1. Civilians dead in the tens of thousands.
  2. On the “Highway of Death” thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed (vehicles do not count).
  3. Shooting at soldiers in a fighting retreat is a war crime.
    That is ridiculous. I think you are confusing the scope of a UN authorization of force resolution with war crime jurisprudence.
16

And when Saddam oppreses his people and kills them, you primary obligation is to yell “Don’t!”? I’m sorry, that is not an realistic alternative. It would be refreshing to hear something constructive from the doves every once in a while, instead of the chant “War bad, peace good”.

hlujarn

There is no way you will spare lives by starting a war.

There is no way you can say that with a straight face. And pointing out how many lifes were lost because of war does not establish a fact that less would have died without it.

That would be like me giving you links that state

40 to 70 million Chinese dead

800,000 Tutsis dead

40 to 50 million Russian dead

(and the list goes on and on)
That these could have been avoided with war. So without war deaths are innevitable. Of course that is untrue. About as ludicrous as your assertion that there is no way you can spare lives. War has never braught about no deaths. But it has definately been considered a tool to spare lives.

Like others have stated, your examples of past wars, and even the Gulf War, has nothing to do with a war of liberation for Iraq. Like you said, the objective or the Gulf War was to remove the Iraqi forces. Not help the people of Iraq. If that was the case we would not have stopped at the border. So out of all of your misleading examples, even that one is irrelevent.

17

In this scenario, a war crime is indeed committed, but not by whom you think. See, there’s no such thing as “retreating under a white flag”.

The white flag means either surrender or parley. If you want to surrender, you put yourself under the control of the force you are surrendering to. You put down your weapons (disable them first, no reason to arm your enemy), you raise a white flag (or indicate your desire to surrender in another way) and you stay where you are until ordered otherwise. These rules are the same whether it’s a single soldier or a division surrendering.

If you indicate a desire to surrender (white flag) but keep your weapons and keep maneuvering, you are the one abusing a surrender signal to your military advantage - that is breaking the Geneva conventions. Definite war crime.

The civilians mixed in with the troops is a sad fact of war, but the civilians’ non-combattant status can’t be extended to protect the troops around them, and the troops are completely legal targets. Collateral damage sucks. Don’t go near soldiers when there’s a shooting war on.

Sorry, that was a hijack. Carry on.

18

(bolding mine).

I can’t really see any scenario where we could sit back and let nature take it course in Iraq and end up with a war on American soil. As nasty as Saddam is, he has never threatened US, why would you think he would suddenly start, unless we provoked him by invading his country?

Saddam has been brutal towards his people, but he is hardly unique in that respect. Brutal regimes are the norm in the middle east, his brutality alone doesn’t justify our intervention.

Now, if his people were asking for us to intervene and topple him, then we could maybe call this a ‘Just war’, but in the absence of an invitation, we have no right to use military force.

If he invaded a neighbor, we could certainly intervene on their behalf, but he seems to have learned his lesson in '91. He may have expansionist ambitions, but he can’t realize them so long as the US is willing to gurantee that they will fight on the side of whoever he invades. There is no current expansion, so that can’t be our reason for ‘Just war’.

Much ink has been spilled about his WMD program, but the facts are very thin and so often misrepresented by the Bush administration. He has no nukes, his nuke program is years or even decades away from creating a weapon, and there is no evidence that he’s making real progress. So long as we can prevent Pakistan from giving him the technolgy, we can certainly afford to watch and wait on the nukes issue. A policy of demanding to inspect possible nuke weapons sites and bombing them if permission is refused would basically solve this problem.

Given the prestige that having nukes does for a country, it’s foolish to think that a successor to Saddam, even a democratic one, wouldn’t try to develop a nuclear weapon anyway. France has nukes after all. What matters is our ability to apply pressure to slow or even halt progress on development of nukes, our ability to do that has been quite successful in iraq since '91, there’s no reason to think that we can’t keep doing it.

As for bio weapons, It’s a logical fallacy to call them WMD, only a very few biological weapons could act in that fashion, and those that could aren’t very useful as weapons because their spread can’t be controlled. Biologicals end up beeing a doomsday weapon, or affecting too small an area to be considered WMD. They make very poor weapons of war, which is probably why they have never been used in this fashion.

Chemical weapons, of course, simply aren’t WMD in any meaningful sense. They should concern us no more than a buildup of conventional forces.

Turn the problem over and look at it anyway you like, there simply isn’t any just reason to go to war with Iraq unless the people of Iraq ask us to.

And there is this whole fallacy of urgency that underlies all of the pro-war arguments. The idea that suddenly, it’s important to do something!.

Well, it aint. It’s important to keep paying attention, to be resolved to step in and act if the situation calls for it. If there is a clear and present danger to the US, or if he uses force against another country or of the people rise up against him and ask for our help.

But since none of these things have happed. Since none of them are immenant. The only just thing we can do is wait. And watch.

And perhaps, drop the sanctions, since they don’t seem to be working against him so much as for him.

19

What about the plot to poison American troops? The assassination attempt on a former president?

20

Here’s a scenario. Saddam again invades Kuwait. When the US starts to prepare a counter-attack, Saddam says, “If you intervene, I’ll detonate a nuclear weapon in the US.” Of course, it would be suicide for him to acatually follow through and do so, but he might be crazy enough to do it anyhow.