War and Ethics Issues - Essay Example

War and Ethics Introduction Countries and people have been known to go to war as a means of resolving conflicts and settling disputes and in the wake of doing so generating ethical questions. Particularly when focusing on the destruction and suffering that war generates such as massive killings of innocent people, numerous casualties, widespread damage to property and resources and the mere psychological trauma for the warring individuals. More often than not, wars are the last resort, they take long duration of time to establish and they last for even longer period and its impact reverberate for centuries if not millenniums as noted by Fiala (2008). Therefore, the question remains, if wars are so wrong, why do people involve in them? Ironically, the same people who orchestrate wars seem practically unable of mass armed violence without credible reasons for establishing their cause as right or justified. This has seen many involved in war limiting the degree of war and the techniques by which war are carried out (Evans, 2005). This ethical essay discusses the ethical aspect of wars by examining whether the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a just war and analyzing the elements such as the Just War Theory, pacifism, the morality of wars, legitimacy of terrorism and the moral permissibility of use of strategic nuclear weapons. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a just war? Whether the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a just war or not can only be evaluated by basing the known facts on the principles of the Just War Theory. According to Fiala (2008), the theory highlights criteria against which a country can justify going into war with another which are namely Just cause, Right authority, Reasonable prospect of success, Right intention, War as the Last Resort and finally the Proportionate cause. The invasion into Iraq did not sufficiently sustain the criteria of just cause since the US and her allies established a pre-emptive war of self–defence owing to the nature and form of threat posed as supported by Gupta (2008). According to the UN Charter Article 51, the inherent right to self-defence is applicable where there is an illustration of imminent threat, which the US did not sufficiently have. Since based on recent discoveries, the capabilities of Iraq prior to the invasion were aggrandized and they opposed earlier reports that stated Iraq was actively increasing its Weapons of Mass Destruction initiatives as highlighted by Miller (2008). Ex ante and post ante assessments show that there was inadequate evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. According to Walzer (1977), war is only justified by aggression, which in the case of invasion in Iraq fails to uphold since no weapons of mass destruction has been established to date, which indicate that the invasion failed to satisfy the principle of non-intervention. This means that no claim to self-defence by US can be made for there was no aggression and the implied imminent threat of WMD was not validated. The legitimate authority of US invading Iraq remains questionable for it failed to get explicit approval from the UN Security Council, which generates certain implications on the issue of morality, basis of self-defence and self-determination (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005). Despite the fact that an approval from the Security Council is not required in the advent of self-defence as highlighted by the UN Charter, 1945, insufficient evidence validating the imminent threat should have compelled the US to seek the approval prior to the invasion. Although some argue that through UN Resolution 1441, US had the authority to invade Iraq as supported by O’Keefe & Coady (2005), majority agree that US was not inherently authorized to apply force (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005). Based on the criteria of proportionate case, the invasion in Iraq can be viewed as unjust. According to Enemark & Michaelsen (2005), the invasion into Iraq was unjust since the prospect of deaths was high incise of an Iraq invasion while the probability of Iraq colluding with terrorist organizations and passing on weapons of mass destruction to them to attack the US was low. In addition, the fact that the imminent or distant threat was the weapons, the appropriate response or strategy would have been to destroy the said weapons and not to enter into a full-scale invasion, occupying and re-engineering the constitution process in Iraq. A more proportionate response in safeguarding the interests and the safety of the US would have been achieved by merely instituting inspections of weapons and applying a no fly zone as discussed by Miller (2008). The US humanitarian intervention failed to effectively meet the criteria of Reasonable prospects of success. Based on the 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, war is considered just when the consequences of inaction are likely more worst compared to the consequences of action. In the case of Iraq, the consequence of action was actually worse than the consequence of inaction owing to the divisive factors of ethnic clashes and religious enmity where the event of civil strife spiralling out of control would culminate to severe repercussions as noted by Visser (2007). Previous plans to improve nation building in Iraq had failed which should have informed the US prior to starting war that reasonable prospects of success was uncertain. The criteria of war as a last resort suggests that war is just only when all initiatives including diplomatic, political and economic ones are carried out and are proven to be inefficient and unsuccessful (Hehir, 1992). Prior to the invasion, reports indicate the situation was not as grim as it was depicted to be by the pro-invasion/ supporters and that not enough was done to justify an invasion. Enemark & Michaelsen (2005) notes that although a fortnight prior to the invasion, a plea was made for additional time for inspections to be completed and there was notable attempts and commitment by the Iraqi officials to disarm and seek peace with Washington, the pleas were denied. This indicates that the invasion failed to satisfy the criteria of war as a last resort since other alternatives existed and were not fully explored. Although the general public does not have open accessibility to information to evaluate the invasion in Iraq, media coverage of the war crimes show serious contravention of the conduct of war. Nardin (2002) indicates that it is unjustifiable to conduct a large-scale invasion such as the Iraq invasion for humanitarian reasons owing to the fact that hundreds of US militants have lost their lives in Iraq and the massive dependence and use of sophisticated weaponry has caused excessive damage to innocent Iraqi civilians. The fact that it is practically impossible to establish terrorists from ordinary civilians particularly during wars, it is possible that hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives in Iraq which illustrates that the Iraqi citizens are in worse state than what they were prior to the invasion, making the invasion unjust (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005). The 2003 invasion in Iraq was unjust. It failed to meet the two set of criteria drawn by the Just War Theory, that is, jus ad bellum, which is the right to go to war and jus in bello, which is the right conduct within war. Is the Just War theory outdated? The just war theory, which was founded by Augustine, has been in use for decades to assess whether nations should go to war or not. According to the theory peace is the preferred choice and it is insufficient to go into war without solving the underlying causes (Evans, 2005). Despite success of the theory in the past, every aspect in regards to peace and wars has changed since the time of Augustine. The world has dynamically changed, the nature of war itself has transformed, the nature and type of weapons have evolved such as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which are now more lethal and are capable of horrendous impact such as witnessed in Japan and the nature of countries has significantly changed. There ha been growing tendency for those avenging wars to interpret and apply the theory to suit them hence reducing the importance of the role the theory plays (Evans, 2005). In a world faced by the growing numbers of extremist organizations and the real threat of terrorism, there is no place left to justify wars and instead, alternative ways of settling disputes and resolving conflicts must be sought. As evidenced by the recent wars, wars are prone to spiral out of control once they are started and with development of nuclear weapons which can wipe out the entire humanity. The just war theory becomes obsolete since the latter makes it difficult to judge or assess some of the criteria such as proportionality and reasonable prospect of success as supported by Hehir (1992). Is it morally permissible to use strategic nuclear weapons? The application of the just war theory in relation to nuclear deterrence generates into a dilemma. Since nuclear deterrence is justifiable as self-defence, the actual acts and threats of retaliating are unethical and immoral (Lackey, 1984). The use of strategic nuclear weapon to generate nationwide or global peace can be likened to killing a fly with dynamite where the outcomes would be massive destruction and costly damage to the surroundings including the user of the dynamite and the damage and destruction is so severe to erode any enjoyment of ridding of the fly. This means that the use of nuclear weapons although it might stop the threat, the damage it brings makes it illogical and morally impermissible to use them. It remains impermissible to use nuclear weapons in defence of national interests due to the issues of proportionality (Lackey, 1984). It is morally impermissible to cause total destruction of a country, its people, its systems, its infrastructures, its resources using nuclear weapons and nothing can justify that. Stockpiling nuclear weapons generates a sense of power for those who have piled them and a sense of fear for those who have not. This scenario generates intimidation and it might be considered immoral since it is not so much about the act but the intention behind the act as suggested by the Kantian theory of ethics. Are Pacifists hypocrites and free riders, who benefit from military defence without contributing to it? Pacifists are those people whose actions and attitudes are towards committing to peace and oppose war out rightly (Cahill, 1992). The author indicates that pacifist’s doctrine fully opposes the use of force and is focused in maintaining peace through use of non-violent initiatives and means. Pacifism encourages and cultivates ideals such as tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, inclusiveness, compassion and love for enemies as means of sustaining peace in the long term (Lackey, 1984). Based on the effects of wars that have been witnessed such as longstanding enmity between states and the increasing cases of terrorism, pacifists cannot be defined as hypocrites and free riders that benefit from military defence without contributing to it. Based on the just war theory however, it becomes impossible to commit to non-violence where violence sometimes is justified (Heir, 1992). Be it as it may, militant combat has been known to result in unending destruction, damage and suffering for the warring parties, which are avoidable by applying pacifist ideals. Is war always morally wrong? Based on which side one looks at war, that is, pacifistic and from the just war, one can decide whether war. There instances however when a country may go into war such as when defending its honour and sovereignty or for self defence such as Kenya going into war in Somalia, when seeking to subdue the other party to uphold fundamental human rights of its citizens and when the other country poses imminent threat to its and other people. War is morally right if it fully satisfies the principle, conditions and criteria set out by the just war theory as suggested by Lackey (1984). Is terrorism morally legitimate at any one time? Terrorism results in massive destruction and loses of lives. Such acts unless carried out in self-defence they are morally liable (Heir, 1992). Based on Kantian theory of ethics, ethically, one must treat humanity never as a means but always as the same time as an end, which means terrorism cannot be morally justified when innocent people are killed to attain some goal as highlighted by Cahill (1992). Lackey (1984) suggests that there are options to terrorism like non-violent civil disobedience and passive opposition, which are morally permissible. How should terrorism be defined? Terrorism should be defined as the unlawful use of violence by non-state actors against people and property for political reasons. This definition eliminates the notion that states exercise terrorism when they enter into war to safeguard national interests Conclusion War is an ironical human activity for it generates some of the best attributes of human beings such as bravery, self-sacrifice and at the same time developing insurmountable cruelty, harm and suffering to the same people. This makes war a subject of intense debate in regards to ethics. The human race has been for centuries been involved in wars and has been debating the rightness or wrongness of wars for almost the same or longer periods whether wars are morally permissible has remained an issue of contention. As identified in the report, pacifistic thoughts are more applicable in modern times where the criteria of proportionality and Reasonable prospect of success in just war theory are hard to define owing to the nature and types of weaponry and wars in modern world. References Cahill, L.S. (1992). Theological contexts of Just War Theory and Pacifism: A response to J.B. Hehir. Journal of religious Studies, 260-262 Enemark, C. & Michaelsen, C. (2005). Just War Doctrine and the Invasion of Iraq. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 51(4), 545-63. Evans, M. (2005). Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. London: Edinburgh University Press Fiala, A. G. (2008). The just war myth: the moral illusions of war. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Gupta, S. (2008). The Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike: Application and Implications During the Administration of President George W. Bush.  International Political ScienceReview, 29(2), 181-96. Heir, J.B. (1992). Just War Theory in a post cold war world. Journal of Religious Studies, 237-257 Lackey, D.P. (1984). Moral principles and nuclear weapons. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Miller, R. B. (2008). ‘Justifications of the Iraq War Examined’, Ethics & International Affairs, 22(1), 43-67. Nardin, T. (2002). The Moral Basis for Humanitarian Intervention. Ethics &International Affairs, 16(1), 11-27. O’Keefe, M. P. & Coady, C. A. J. (2005). Righteous violence: the ethics and politics of military intervention, Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press. Visser, B. (2007). Can the US-Led Invasion of Iraq be Justified as a Humanitarian intervention? Social Alternatives, 26(1), 53-58. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and Unjust Wars, New York: Basic Books. Read More

The legitimate authority of US invading Iraq remains questionable for it failed to get explicit approval from the UN Security Council, which generates certain implications on the issue of morality, basis of self-defence and self-determination (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005). Despite the fact that an approval from the Security Council is not required in the advent of self-defence as highlighted by the UN Charter, 1945, insufficient evidence validating the imminent threat should have compelled the US to seek the approval prior to the invasion.

Although some argue that through UN Resolution 1441, US had the authority to invade Iraq as supported by O’Keefe & Coady (2005), majority agree that US was not inherently authorized to apply force (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005). Based on the criteria of proportionate case, the invasion in Iraq can be viewed as unjust. According to Enemark & Michaelsen (2005), the invasion into Iraq was unjust since the prospect of deaths was high incise of an Iraq invasion while the probability of Iraq colluding with terrorist organizations and passing on weapons of mass destruction to them to attack the US was low.

In addition, the fact that the imminent or distant threat was the weapons, the appropriate response or strategy would have been to destroy the said weapons and not to enter into a full-scale invasion, occupying and re-engineering the constitution process in Iraq. A more proportionate response in safeguarding the interests and the safety of the US would have been achieved by merely instituting inspections of weapons and applying a no fly zone as discussed by Miller (2008). The US humanitarian intervention failed to effectively meet the criteria of Reasonable prospects of success.

Based on the 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, war is considered just when the consequences of inaction are likely more worst compared to the consequences of action. In the case of Iraq, the consequence of action was actually worse than the consequence of inaction owing to the divisive factors of ethnic clashes and religious enmity where the event of civil strife spiralling out of control would culminate to severe repercussions as noted by Visser (2007).

Previous plans to improve nation building in Iraq had failed which should have informed the US prior to starting war that reasonable prospects of success was uncertain. The criteria of war as a last resort suggests that war is just only when all initiatives including diplomatic, political and economic ones are carried out and are proven to be inefficient and unsuccessful (Hehir, 1992). Prior to the invasion, reports indicate the situation was not as grim as it was depicted to be by the pro-invasion/ supporters and that not enough was done to justify an invasion.

Enemark & Michaelsen (2005) notes that although a fortnight prior to the invasion, a plea was made for additional time for inspections to be completed and there was notable attempts and commitment by the Iraqi officials to disarm and seek peace with Washington, the pleas were denied. This indicates that the invasion failed to satisfy the criteria of war as a last resort since other alternatives existed and were not fully explored. Although the general public does not have open accessibility to information to evaluate the invasion in Iraq, media coverage of the war crimes show serious contravention of the conduct of war.

Nardin (2002) indicates that it is unjustifiable to conduct a large-scale invasion such as the Iraq invasion for humanitarian reasons owing to the fact that hundreds of US militants have lost their lives in Iraq and the massive dependence and use of sophisticated weaponry has caused excessive damage to innocent Iraqi civilians. The fact that it is practically impossible to establish terrorists from ordinary civilians particularly during wars, it is possible that hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives in Iraq which illustrates that the Iraqi citizens are in worse state than what they were prior to the invasion, making the invasion unjust (Enemark & Michaelsen, 2005).

Read More