Thanks for reading my mind. I’ll call you up the next time I’m trying to decide whether or not I want to have a second date with some girl.
Actually, you lost me in your post. You seem to be saying that the question of morality is beside the point wrt foreign policy. Are you saying that’s the way it should be or that’s the way it is (but shouldn’t be)?
It’s the way it is, it’s the way of the world.
Considerations of ‘morality’ are a red herring and also misleading; its something you want to find because it makes you feel better about what your Government does in your name, or something Government tries to convince you of (to justify what they do in your name).
But as above, self-interest is amoral. It’s not relevant to the operation of foreign policy.
Yes, the pub is calling me (literally) as we speak. Probably won’t be back in to address further posts until tomorrow.
Still, there’s the problem of going in and handing the Iraqis their liberty on a silver platter. What right did we have to make that decision for them, and will they value something that they didn’t work to earn for themselves?
Yojimbo said:
Y’know, that might be what Blair said at some point, but it’s not what Bush said. In Bush’s speech calling for action against Iraq, he specifically laid down the conditions by which Saddam could avoid invasion. Giving up WMDs was only one of them. He was also to make a full accounting of prisoners of war, return property to Kuwait, and immediately end the oppression of his people. This was a clear and unambiguous demand.
I believe this war was HIGHLY moral. My personal opinion is that dictators who do not respect fundamental human rights have NO claim to sovereignity. It is not a moral imperative to overthrow all of them - especially if the result would be worse than the solution. In Saddam’s case, it was in the U.S.'s interest to topple him, and it was also politically feasible and at least I believe it would lead to a better world. Therefore, there was no compelling reason to leave Saddam in power, in which case the needs of his people became a compelling moral imperative to remove him.
Saddam was a monster who killed an average of at least 30,000 people for every year he was in power, plus countless numbers of people beaten, raped, threatened, and exiled. So while this war would have civilian casualties, the number was much smaller than the number of victims killed every year. There are probably more Iraqi citizens alive in Iraq today than would have been if Saddam had been left in power. So even the crude calculus of, “How many people have to die for this war” breaks in favor of the invasion.
And you know, the real moral arbiters of this war will be the Iraqi people. Just how many of them would answer “No” if you asked them if they would like to turn back the clock to 2002?
I actually think it was ultimately a moral war. Bush slouched towards it, but Sadaam has to go.
Any leader who gloats over an enemy’s catastrophic misfortune that the leader wasn’t involved in, then proceed to make a big scene about rewarding others for engaging in the same criminal action, well, does not deserve to be a leader.
Iran and North Korea sent help after 9-11. The Iraqi leadership laughed about it on air. That was why Americans think SAdaam was inviled with 9/11. He laughed along with Osama.
The fibbing about WMD in order to engage in immediate action, when tightening sanctions might have done the trick, was dubious.
Well, Squink, a lot of them did die trying during Gulf War I, so I don’t think anyone can argue that it’s unearned.
The problem is as LC defined it. Self-interest is always what drives foreign policy. Of the list of four that he defined, the only one that should legitimately drive foreign policy is number four. Further, national interest should be strictly defined in terms of three things:
1 - National defense against either actual attack or imminent, obvious threats, in wartime.
2 - In peacetime, commercial interests, with strict neutrality in conflicts between two nations either in our hemisphere or two nations outside our hemisphere being the overriding consideration.
3 - The Monroe Doctrine, which was used to good effect, for instance, by President Grover Cleveland to force the British to negotiate with Venezuela when they threatened actual war over the border between British Guyana and Venezuela.
Yes, terrorism is missing from the list. If it’s state sponsored, number one covers it, and would have covered the war against Afghanistan. If not, then it’s an intelligence and a police problem, not a military one, and as it does not involve inter-state relations, has no bearing on foreign policy.
We have enormous military and economic power, but like any such power, the threat is always worse than the execution.
Moreso, it has the power to seriously unbalance any conflict that we stick our noses in. I would bring up historical or current non-Iraq examples, but that would just bog us down, so lets keep it in Iraq.
Saddam kept Iraq together by means of an iron fist, as we all know. We have now stuck our noses in between the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds, and as of now, the Sunnis I’m sure are feeling seriously oppressed because they have the most to lose by Saddam’s loss of power. So whether we like it or not, we have chosen sides in the internal struggle between these three ethnic groups, and thereby shifted the balance of power in favor of the Shiites. This is an absurd position for us to be in, and as a practical matter it means that if, after a period of years, whatever democracy we install degenerates into a Shiite dictatorship that slaughters Sunnis and Kurds without mercy, the rest of the world will be justified in pointing the finger at us and blaming us for having unleashed that particular whirlwind.
So, it may look moral now, but the real test is how it will look a decade or two from now. And the lesson is simple, regardless of how this turns out: we should, quite literally, mind our own business.
But the way we imposed it from the outside gave them no opportunity to build their own nationalist institutions. Rather than having some Iraqi George Washington analog towering over the Baghdad skyline, Iraq has been left with the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, and an admonition that everyone has to play nice from now on. Without an internal struggle how can there be a unifying force?
Are you seriously saying that laughing at the wrong time is reason enough to invade a country? Because if that is what you are saying it has to be among the top five stupidest things I have read on this board.
And, BTW, since I seem to remember the Iraqi government condemning the terrorist attacks, I would sure appreciate your cites of the public and official acts and expressions of gloating of the Iraqi government.
What about leaders who violate human rights in numerous other countries except their own? If only George W. Bush could be put on trial for war crimes…
Can I get the cite on the North Korea bit? I hadn’t heard that before.
What about leaders who violate human rights in numerous other countries except their own? If only George W. Bush could be put on trial for war crimes…
I’ll go along with that as long as it’s an Iraqi jury representing all the regions.
Betcha any amount of money he is acquitted. Doesn’t even have to be unanimous, simple majority.
To go along with the “Has Iraq stopped beating its wife” analogy…
We heard the beating. We ignored it for years. When it became really convenient for us to do so, we picked up a big honking gun, went over, kicked their door down, and started shooting. The wife took a bullet; she’ll be okay, but we can’t tell whether there’ll be permanent damage. The husband is down at the jail.
The results of this war are yet to be determined; we have no idea whether Iraq will be better off or not. Meanwhile, there are thousands of human beings dead because of our actions. Would Saddam have killed more than that? Nobody knows; all we know is that we’re now trying to compare body counts to see who’s more moral.
Hardly encouraging.
Well, the last “victims” of US imperialist aggression, the Kosovars, gave Bill Clinton a hero’s welcome for his role in breaking in and shooting at them to save them.
How about doing a little research - you could start with ‘NATO + Kosovo’?
And do get back to us.
Interesting OP question…
Taking Saddam down is a good thing ? Yes ?
Stopping Dictators is a good thing ? Yes ?
Not evaluating the damage caused by this ? Bad.
If you shoot a murderer but his two starving kids become even worse criminals… have you made the world a better place ? Hardly.
I agree with the notion that the war could be/was Moral... but if you are doing something "good" and your reasons to do so are anything but "good" and "moral"... does the war itself remain "moral" ? Plus the damage mentioned above. If you convince me that Bush was really invading with ZERO thoughts of oil contracts or politics.... then it was moral.
To do the right thing for selfish/egotistical reasons is not moral.**How about doing a little research - you could start with ‘NATO + Kosovo’?
**
I’ve done the research. Why don’t you make your point?
**To do the right thing for selfish/egotistical reasons is not moral.
**
That’s quite debatable. Especially since no one can ever know the reasons someone does something. You can’t read minds. Obsessing about “real reasons” is just a way to attack something without ever having to provide proof.
Very true... but then we can debate both ways... so the morality of the Iraq War will always be doubtful either way. If you then factor other things like the hurry to go to war and the need to make it seem an american thing... not a UN thing just makes the case worse for dabbling with a "moral war" idea. Things certainly point to immoral reasons for what could have been a moral war.Well, here’s what one Iraqi thinks about it:
“I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation.” - Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.
In the 23 years of Saddam Hussein’s presidency, an estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens disappeared and are presumed dead. That’s an average of 13,000 citizens killed per year.