Now granted the Times is a biased news source, but let’s assume that the article speaks the truth.
Does human atrocity morally require us to intervene? I realize that in the past the US has stood by and turned a blind eye to genocide (the Eastern African mass murders come to mind.) But assuming that we cannot atone for the sins of the past, should we invade Iraq to force a regime change based on moral reasons? Is that enough? If so, why does Bush insist on waging war because of weapon violations? Why can’t he go to the UN council and demand support to remove that monster?
The crux of the debate is: Is morality enough to justify war?
If we took on every nation with human rights abuses, genocides, and “evil” rulers, war would never cease. Amnesty International’s website lists hundreds of human rights abuses which are occuring as I type this message. Saddam may be an evil bastard, but he’s not the only evil bastard out there.
If it makes us feel better about our actions, we can say we did it to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, but what about the rest of the world’s population who are suffering just as greatly?
Human brutality in and of itself is typically not sufficient justification for us to intervene, IMO. However, it can be used as justification if there are other compelling reasons. In the Iraq example, the humanitarian aspect of the situation has little to do with why we’re going in - we’re going in because Saddam is considered a threat to world security in general, US security in particular. But the humanitarian aspect of it - that war has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives per year, and improve the lives of millions more - certainly makes it more palatable.
Jeff
I challenge anyone to find an instance where someone waged a war that they knew was immoral, and motivated their soldiers to fight even though there was no moral high-ground. There was never a war waged without a moral component. But a moral component need not be the only reason war is waged. In fact, it’s easier to wage war if you have other reasons, too.
The problem with the moral component as the only justification of a war is that if you’re at war, there’s at least one other group that clearly disagrees with your morality.
So who’s right? Whose morality do you trust? And can we agree that the Ends Justify the Means? Under what circumstances?
All of this assumes that each nation agrees to play by the rules, listen to the other members of the world community, abide by consensus, and not take the bit in their teeth just because they know they’re right. Kinda democratic-like.
It should be a justification. However, where do you draw the line on what is brutality and what isn’t? Some people consider abortions to be brutal, some don’t. Some consider solitary confinement as a method of punishment to be brutal, some don’t.
It should, definitely be grounds for intervention.
There is, however, a proviso to this.
Whatever action we take must not have a cost greater than the realistic benefits which can be assumed to be realised from whatever action we take. Our actions against Iraq for the past 10 years have been anything but. It is to our eternal shame that, for all its horror, bombing the crap out of Baghdad will actually be “better” than what we did before.
Unfortunately, I don’t happen to believe the Bush administration’s actions will provide a stable basis for peace. It’s sad. To quote a friend of mine, “I can’t recall a time in the past where I have more fervently wished I was wrong about this.” Hopefully, I will be proved wrong about our intervention in Iraq.
Not only is Saddam a brutal bastard, he is a brutal bastard who badly wants nuclear weapons. He’s not only shown the world that he’s brutal but that he’s crazy enough to slaughter people on a grand scale. The grandest scale his weapons will allow. Saddam has displayed no limits. The biggest and most important thing in Saddam’s world is Saddam.
This world is different than the world of WWII. Oceans don’t protect us any longer. Madmen like Saddam, who don’t yet have nuclear weapons, simply can’t be allowed them. If nothing is done, he will achieve a goal and possess nuclear weapons.
In regards to Saddam’s brutality and the soon to come post-Saddam Iraq — god only knows what we will find.
There is no doubt that Saddam is truly evil and capable of the most heinous atrocities. However, it seems hypocritical to use this for rationalizing this war when the Chinese used tanks against their own people in Tianamen Square and the US rewarded them with Most Favored Nation trade status.