Is the US Ethically and Morally Right in Invading Iraq - Essay Example

Is the U.S. ethically and morally right in invading Iraq This can be understood by knowing the seven basic Christian just war doctrine principles which comprise the Jus ad bellum and the Jus in bello. These are legitimate authority, Just Cause, Peaceful Intention, Last Resort, Reasonable Hope of Success, Proportionality and Discrimination or Noncombatant Immunity. Answering these one by one will make the picture clearer. It was known that for the U.S and its allies for a military intervention in Iraq, a prior authorization from the United Nations Security Council was a must. It is believed that the invasion of an independent country like Iraq was a breach of international law laid by the U.N. charter. As U.S.A and its coalition governments are signatory's to the UN Charter, this move led to the 'Prohibition of Aggression' and hence is considered illegal. By performing such action, the U.S.A totally stained the credibility of the U.N. by diverting from its resolutions. One major concern of the U.S.A and its allies was that Iraq possessed 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMD). This worry was due to Iraq's refusal to allow a UN inspection on its WMD facilities in 1998, in spite of the fact that this was an obligation under the 1991 armistice. This was proved to be wrong much later when enough damage was done. According to a report carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it was categorically stated that Iraq did not possess any nuclear weapons. However, just the fact that the U.S.A were wrong in believing that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs which could be a potential threat to them shows that why preventative wars are immoral. Another justification for invading Iraq was based on its alleged links with terrorism and Al-Qaeda. This too was an assumption not based on any solid evidence. According to a CIA report it was indicated that the Iraqis had been deliberately avoiding any actions against the U.S. Also, in spite of the then U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld believed that Iraq was backing international terrorism, according to the State Department's annual study report, there were no serious threats of terrorism by the government of Iraq. If this was the real cause, then countries like Iran and Syria are suspected of doing the same, but they are not the objects of U.S.A.'s invasion threats. The question here is not whether Iraq is directly linked to terrorism or not, but to find out to what extent is it linked to terrorism if at all. The belief that Iraq posed a military threat to U.S had been proved wrong much long ago when it was reported that Iraq neither possessed the launchers for their missiles nor the engine to power them (UNSCOM, 1992). There was absolutely no evidence if Iraq possessed Scud missiles and launchers after the Gulf War. With its neighboring countries like Israel having a much sophisticated defense system in place, Iraq was in no way a military threat. It is also believed that the use of force must have high prospects of success. USA's motive to invade Iraq also aimed at establishing peace in the Middle East. Bush administration on April 9, 2003 stated that there were 30,000 Iraqi casualties, though according to a national survey by The Lancet, there are about 654,965 Iraqi deaths from March 2003 to July 2006. A storm was provoked by the shocking admittance by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Iraq war caused by U.S.A was a 'disaster'. Though he said that this disaster was not a cause of some accident in the planning, but due to existence of a deliberate strategy to create a situation in which the minority that supports war overpowers the majority that presses for peace. He went on to say that the violence in Iraq was continually on the rise and led to a disturbed Middle East. According to the former SAS officer Peter Tinley, who played an active role in the devising and execution of the Iraq war plan for Australia publicly stated that the 'nation's involvement had been a strategic and moral blunder.' He went on to say that the Australian Defense Force was duped to believe that the war was in some way legitimate. According to him, the US-led coalition had been immature in its thinking about what could be achieved after a fast military invasion of Iraq. These comments came in the wake of one of the deadliest day of violence experienced by Baghdad since its March 2003 invasion, in which 202 people were killed and 256 were injured due to 5 powerful car bombs in the Sadr City. There are many supporters for the U.S troops in the Iraq today, who consider it a 'moral duty' of the U.S to provide security to Iraqi people. To support these troops, means to support their actions and motives which implicitly means to support the war, and the Bush administration in its actions. The question that arises is whether the troops are in fact morally supportable group. This can be understood when one looks at it in the context of a group, which was fighting an otherwise immoral war. There is a lot of evident in the fact that the American troops are resorting to reprehensible and immoral actions in the course of war, such as the Abu Ghraib case and the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah. Hence to support the troops would mean to support these atrocities. Also, one must understand that if the war is called immoral, whether it was immoral right from the beginning or once it was certain that Iraq did not possess WMD. For of the war has been unethical right from the beginning, and then anyone who willingly became a part of the military after the outset of war is acting immorally. However, if the U.S can say that they were led to the war on false claims, then one cannot blame the soldiers for being a part of the war to support national security. Point here is, as it stands today, it is 'morally and ethically' right for the U.S troops to withdraw from Iraq gradually in a period of 12 months and doing as much of rebuilding the nation as they can in this time, with the help of morally correct actions. Whether or not U.S invaded Iraq because of certain other motives such as its oil interests is not even a subject of debate. U.S. consumption is 26% of the world's oil, though it has only 2% of the world's oil reserves.It has to import about 9.8 million barrels of oil everyday, which is even more than half of its daily consumption of 19.5 million barrels. It was found that in Cheney's national energy plan which was constituted during secret meetings with certain oil executives, the U.S. wants to import 17 million barrels a day by 2020. According to this plan, a priority of U.S. foreign policy includes control over the availability of oil to other nations. Iraq accounts for 11% of the world's oil, and is the second largest oil reserve in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia. One would obviously be inclined to think that U.S.A had oil interest in Iraq. This was confirmed much later when a report by BBC confirmed that the Bush administration had a secret plan which was drafted just before the Iraq invasion in 2003, and included selling out all of Iraq's oil fields. This plan was drafted by neo-conservatives intentions on using Iraq's oil in order to destroy the Opec cartel with the help of massive increase in production above Opec quotas. The current area of attention is to push the U.S, out of Iraq and a quick withdrawal of its troops. This is seen in the wake of rising military and civilian death toll. The war has been labeled a civil war, and many believe that U.S. presence in Iraq is only encouraging the ongoing violence by giving the Al-Qaeda a target and by not allowing the Iraqi political leaders to reach a power-sharing agreement. According to a recent survey conducted, up to 70% of Americans believe that the U.S must withdraw its troops from Iraq, mostly in a matter of 12 months, and about 60% feel that the U.S. must stay as it has a moral obligation to the Iraqi people. By this, it is clearly understood that U.S failed to justify any of its actions in waging a war against Iraq, hence taking an unethical and immoral step by killing the lives of many innocent civilians, by breach of its commitment to the UN to abide by the resolutions and finally by creating a situation of unrest specially in the Middle East. Bibliography 1. United States Institute of Peace Would the Invasion of Iraq be a "Just War" (2002) (http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr98.pdf) 2. Stephen Zunes Seven Reasons to Oppose a U.S. Invasion of Iraq (2002) (http://www.fpif.org/pdf/reports/PRiraq2.pdf) 3. David L. Perry Ethical Issues in Recent U.S. Military Engagements (2004) (http://home.earthlink.net/davidlperry/recent.htm) Read More