Was the Iraq War moral?

Great Debates
1

This thread comes out of several different threads where claims or insinuations have been made that Bush is evil, or that his policies are evil. Since “evil” is such a loaded word, I thought it would be useful to pick the most significant and controversial policy of the Bush administration and debate whether or not is was morally justified. Not whether or not it was “evil” or whether or not it was legal, but whether or not it was moral.

First, let me clarify that the legality of an action and the morality of an action are generally two separate issues. It is possible for something to be legal but not moral, and it’s possible for something to be moral but not legal. (An example of the former might be adultery, and an example of the latter might be civil disobedience in the Jim Crow South.)

I believe the war was moral from the simple standpoint that Saddam Hussein could not be considered the legitimate ruler of Iraq, and that he oppressed the Iraqis beyond what a reasonable person could consider to be tolerable. I realize that there is a continuum of oppression in this world, and I would make the distinction between an Iraq and, say, a Jordan. That is to say, there are some morally ambiguous cases, but that Iraq falls well outside that ambiguous region of the continuum. We would have been morally justified in finishing him off in '91 during the 1st Gulf War, and the situation remained morally justifiable in '03.

Additionally, I’d like to make it clear that a moral right is not also a moral compulsion. That is, while I think the US was morally correct in invading Iraq, I don’t think it was morally compelled to do so. Nor does the morality of the invasion hinge on the US’s willingness to tackle every Saddam-like regime in the world.

Finally, while I see the war as morally justified, I still would not have executed it had it been my decision. I don’t see that it was necessarily in the long term (or short term) interests of the US, although I understand how people could believe that it would be.

2

Do I think that this war was moral? No I don’t.

I do not believe that the US and allies went to war for the Iraqi people. They went to war for their own varied personal reasons and nothing more.

If I believed for one second that the reason for this war was humanitarian I would find it moral if still possibly illegal.

Yes the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam and his rule gone but their fortune is nothing more than a side benefit and propaganda aid with the home voter. The reason the US went to war was power politics mixed in with a healthy piece of neocon ideology. 9/11 being the catalyst. The allies joined the venture with self interests in mind. Nothing I have seen or heard tells me otherwise.

Could a internationally unpopular war with Iraq be moral? Yes but not this one.

3

Basically shouldn’t the intent behind the action be looked at as well as the result when we are trying to judge morality?

Remember Blair said that if his list of demands were meet war could be averted and Saddam could remain in power. The demands where all about WMD. So either believe like I do that these demands where bogus and merely a diversionary tactic try and show that the war was just and the Allies were trying everything to avert war or you believe that the UK(I don’t remember the US distancing themselves from the demands BTW) at least were willing to leave the Iraqi people in the hands of Saddam.

4

Sounds like you’re asking whether this was a just war or not.

That’s a damn good question, which, of course, only history can bear out.

But, I really find myself wondering why the war was fought, which I think is a critical matter if we’re going to say whether it was a moral/just war or not.

For all the hype given to WMD and such, the Administration barely wants to talk about that anymore. Is that an attempt to cover its rear, or, in the minds of those who really pushed for confrontation, was WMD always a matter of secondary importance? I can’t tell.

Was it about terrorism? Saddam was no doubt a terror to his people, and also had black marks on his record for targeting Bush I, but I just don’t think that he was a very concerning terror threat to the US – at least not that would morally justify the loss of hundreds, perhaps eventally a thousand-plus, American lives over. I think Iran and Syria are far more concerning as far as terrorism goes.

I kind of get the feeling that the whole purpose behind the war was essentially that Saddam was perceived low-hanging fruit in an assault against rogue nations. There is just an air of convenience about it – we could attack Iraq with less risk of serious repercussions than we could attack any other rogue nation. That air of convenience leaves a bad taste in my mouth – reeking of opportunism – that has me leaning against it being a moral war, but not yet completely convinced. But in any case, an unwise war.

5

I was interested on discussing this. However, ignoring the WMD issue is telling me that the OP already is not too serious about the big picture.

6

Damn hard question to answer John. If I’m understanding the parameters correctly, then what you are asking is not ‘did the US THINK it was moral, and thats why they did it’ or ‘Was the US right to invade Iraq’, which is kind of what yojimbo’s take on it is. You are asking if, over all, the war was moral reguardless of the reasons why it was done.

Personally, if it were me, I wouldn’t have done it. If I were president or had some say, I would not have committed the US to war in Iraq under the circumstances as I understand them. I don’t think Iraq was a threat to the US at this time, nor do I think he was that plugged into the whole terrorist thing, so I think he could have waited for the time being. As to the suffering of the Iraqi people, ya, its upsetting and I felt and would have continued to feel bad for them…same as I feel for those poor bastards in NK and various other shit holes throughout the world. There are a lot of places where folks suffer in the world, and its not really the US’s job to fix all the worlds problems…especially since most of the world is pretty adament about us NOT fixing them any way.

That having been said though, ya…I think the war WAS moral, though god knows how history will record this fucked up mess we are currently in. I think it was moral because I think that, in the long run, the Iraqi people will be better off. And if they AREN’T better off in the long run, at least they have a chance of their own to have it better off. They have an equal stake now, and if it gets fucked up, they can take part of the blame for that IMO…because they DO have a chance now. The US will take the lions share of the blame if it drops in the pot, but the Iraqi’s also will get their share, as from the time of SH’s government folding, they were in it, whether they like it or not. Its more of a chance than they would have had under SH or one of his sons when they succeeded him IMO.

-XT

7

yojimbo:
You raise a good point. I would say that oil was the reason it could be considered in the US interest to invade Iraq. But that is beside the point as to whether the war was moral or not.

Supposing my neighbor is being beaten by her husband. I hear the racket and go over to stop the husband from beating her. Suppose my only motivation is that I don’t want to hear the noise anymore, not that I paricularly want to help the wife. Would you say that my action was not morally justified? Must I want to help the wife for the act to be moral?

My point is that by beating his wife, the husband loses his moral standing as to whether I can decide to stop him or not. Doesn’t matter what my reason is. (Unless the reason is so that I can beat her instead of him.)

8

God, what a mess…I really need to preview. It should have been:

Personally, if it were me, I wouldn’t have done it. If I were president or had some say, I would not have committed the US to war in Iraq under the circumstances as I understand them. I don’t think Iraq was a threat to the US at this time, nor do I think THEY were that plugged into the whole terrorist thing, so I think WE could have waited for the time being.

As to the suffering of the Iraqi people, ya, its upsetting and I felt and would have continued to feel bad for them…same as I feel for those poor bastards in NK and various other shit holes throughout the world. There are a lot of places where folks suffer in the world, and its not really the US’s job to fix all the worlds problems…especially since most of the world is pretty adament about us NOT fixing them any way.

-XT

9

I’m really uncomfortable with the good vs. evil thing. Way too cosmic. I intensely dislike the Prez’s habit of portraying the “War on Terror” as some battle between the forces of Good vs. the shadowy armies of Evil.

The war was most certainly immoral, because it was predicated on a goddamned fucking lie. Our president and his administration are Guilty As Hell of perpetrating the specious association of the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. No such association ever existed. Osama bin Laden has said publically on many an occasion that Saddam is an apostate and an enemy of Muslims. SH would have killed Osama if he had set foot in Iraq because Saddam played second fiddle to NOBODY. Al Qaeda was as much a threat to SH’s power as the US, and our leaders knew that from the beginning. In Osama’s vision of a pan-Arab Islamist state, the only place for a Saddam Hussein would have been on the gibbet, and SH was well aware of that.

Not the legitimate leader of Iraq? Please. When Saddam was interested in killing Iranians, we were all for him being the “legitimate” leader of Iraq. We sold or gave him and his lackeys a good portion of the ordnance he shot back at us in GW1, for crying out loud. When he gassed Iranians, did we complain? Shit, no. When he gassed his own people, did we do more than harumph in indignation? No!

Saddam didn’t bet on what the future had in store: Namely, he didn’t bet that the son of the President he tried to have bumped off would himself become president. And really, with an intellect and resumee like Dubya’s, could you blame him? But Saddam pissed off the wrong Texan, and I have a feeling it’s been Dubya’s most pressing desire, from the day he sought the presidential nominaton, to take revenge on Saddam.

There is no other rational explanation. We can’t claim we didn’t know there was no imminent threat from Iraq, that it was all a big misunderstanding: The “intelligence” needed to justify invasion was cherry-picked and distorted with the singular intention of providing a pretense for taking down the current Iraqi regime. We can’t claim it’s part of the war on terror: Al Qaeda only became a factor in Iraq AFTER we ousted Saddam. We can’t claim it’s about enforcing International Law: The terms have always been for the UN to either come aboard with the US, or we would go it alone. Evoking UN charter was so blatantly disingenuous and such utter hypocracy. We do not recognize the World Court. We do not recognize nuclear (nook-u-lar, if yer Dubya) test bans. We do not recognize ABM treaties. We do not recognize landmine bans. We do not ratify Kyoto. Etc., etc. et-fucking-cetera. International law does not apply to the United States, and to make any claim that we operate to uphold it is such a lie.

Mr. Mace, you’ve been duped. You’ve been lied to. You’ve been betrayed. Yes, Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Yes, it’s good he’s gone. But the manner of his removal was ILLEGAL, a crime predicated on a lie. Vigilante “justice” is not justice, no matter how deserving the culprit. We were victims of a horrible crime on Sept. 11. Since then, we’ve squandered every opportunity since to bring the world together in coalition to fight real terrorism, and implement international law effectively. UN inspections of Iraq gained new urgency after 9/11. The vast majority of the international community was on board, supporting renewed vigilance in the face of the REGIONAL threat of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was no more or less a legitimate leader than any other tyrant, but he was being effectively contained. That much is painfully obvious now. There was no immenent threat to the US. Hell, there was no imminent threat even to Kuwait, or the Arab world wouldn’t have sent Colin Powell packing way back when.

Our president is not just immoral, he is a criminal who has dragged us all into an illegal and immoral war. The fact that a tyrant has fallen as a result does not mitigate the culpability of our administration in perpetrating a bold-faced lie of international proportions, or the way they have tainted our democracy by the abuse of our constitution and our armed forces in the perpetration of this crime.

Does that answer your question?

10

I can hear the Church Lady: “How conVEEEENient”.:slight_smile:

I agree pretty much with what you’ve said. And that’s partly why I wouldn’t have invaded. But I still don’t see that as a reason to condemn it, morally. Yeah it was kind of easy-- a big guy beating up on a mouse. But that, in and of itself, doesn’t make it wrong.

11

Considering all the lies, misinformation, and revisionist history used by those in charge to justify this war, I strongly believe that they knew from the beginning that their stated reasons weren’t reliable, and perpetuated the lies anyway of their own free will. That, alone, is sufficient for me to stamp this war as “immoral.”

12

Ok let me get this straight as sentences like

Aren’t working to well in my drunken brain :slight_smile:

Are you saying that even if this war and that was based on mistruths, opportunism, self interest and had little if anything to do with concern for the Iraqis it is still moral because Saddam was such a bastard and the Iraqi people are better off without him?

13

Perhaps you misunderstand my position. I did not support the war. Even if the WMD claim were true, I didn’t want us to go in there.

But what I wanted to do, and what is morally acceptable to do, are two different things.

As for the WMD “lie”, I still don’t accept that Bush was, in fact, lying. You’ll have to explain how Blair, and plenty of the Democracts (Lieberman, Bayh, etc.) were in on the lie as well. It doesn’t hang together.

Did Bush exagerate and use some misleading information? Probably. But I don’t buy the “bold faced lie” accusation.

However, supposing he did lie? Let’s go back to my neighbor analogy. Suppose we have another neighbor who doesn’t want me to go in and stop the husband (for whatever reason). I lie to the new neighbor, telling him his house is onfire, so that he’ll be distracted and I can go in and stop the beating. Again, assume that I don’t care so much about helping the wife, but I just want the noise to stop. Is my act immoral?

14

Pretty much, yes. Provided that we were not simply going in for the purpose of exploiting the Iraqis ourselves.

If we were, in fact, only interested in stealing the oil for ourselves, then the war would not have been moral. In that sense, I’m not all that keen on US corporations jumping into lucrative oil/construction contracts w/o a free and open bidding process. While I don’t think the process so far has been completely wrong, I think it could have been done with more transparency and fairness.

15

So you think it’s moral to slap a guy because he makes too much noise?

You’re the one that says the wife isn’t the issue so let’s forget about her for a second :wink:

16

From yojimbo

Sympathize with you on the drinking part…I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been pretty far gone and still trying to respond to an interesting thread. Usually I just start repeating myself over and over…and my english goes to pot. :slight_smile:

Ya, I think thats what John is saying. Not that its moral from the US’s perspective (the ‘right’ thing to do and all that)…but that its simply a moral thing to do. If I’m a thief in the midst of a robbery, and I happen to save a childs life while committing my crime, what I DID was still moral, even if I’m not. See? Reguardless of WHY the US did what they did, was it a good thing? If you think the Iraqi’s were basically better off under SH, and that they are and will be worse off under a new government, then its a slam dunk case…it was not moral. However if you think the Iraqi’s are or will be better off under a new government than under SH, then reguardless if you think the US is moral, the situation is IMO.

-XT

17

Yeah, but that’s because you have an emotional need to feel good about your country; at least you didn’t start with the ‘world policeman’ bullshit.

What drives policy – all policy, especially foreign policy – is self-interest. There are four aspects to self-interest with regard the US:

What’s good for the president
What’s good for the presidents funders
What’s good for the president’s own political party
What’s good for the US (the national interest).

That’s all that ever matters. Ever. Matters.

Which order/priority those are taken into account in making policy decisions depends on the particular circumstances in hand.

With very few exceptions (and Iraq is far from being one), there is no morality component in policy, except where you can spin a morality tale to sell to the public (that supports your policy - how the ‘people’ love their government acting ‘morally’ (sic). Soft focus flag, rising strings . . .).

You may want to think otherwise, you may even convince yourself otherwise but realpolitik just doesn’t work that way; self-interest is amoral. Period.

18

No. If he’s just banging trash cans together, I can’t go over and slug him. But he is beating his wife. He has lost the moral right to not be restrained, regardless of my motivation.

19

And did the dead lose their moral right to live? Some of them, yes if I’m to use your logic but what about all the others?

That Londoner up above me certainly said what I was thinking better than I did. On the nose my dear chap. On the nose.

20

I don’t think thats John’s point, London_Calling. I think we are all aware that the US used realpolitik reasons for what they did. I actually think Ravenman summed it up nicely with his low hanging fruit analogy.

The RESULTS of an amoral act can still be good, even if it wasn’t the REASON for the act itself. No?

-XT