Ethics of War in Iraq

Ethics in Iraq

On September 11, 2001 tragedy struck as hijackers took two commercial airliners hostage and subsequently flew them into the World Trade Center in New York City. The culprits were members of the terrorist group “Al-Qaeda”; a group focused in Afghanistan that was known for its violent hostility towards the United States. Feeling as though they posed an even greater threat to the safety of American Citizens, President George W. Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. As time went on, with insignificant findings in Afghanistan, the Bush administration made a jump to declare war on Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. The rationale behind this declaration was the nation’s “relation” to Al-Qaeda and their supposed weapons of mass destruction. Over the course of six years, American troops continue to sacrifice their lives and not one weapon of mass destruction has been unearthed. Few ties to Al-Qaeda have been discovered. In light of these facts, it is easy to understand why the common man considers the War in Iraq a disastrous blunder. It forces others, however, to think deeper and find a more significant meaning to the War. Upon careful analysis one can empirically find the underlying ethical motivations and implications addressed by philosophers of the past.

Although this is a recent event with repercussions in the present, there are still ethical concepts which transcend the boundaries of time and are directly applicable to this war. Aristotle believed that the act of the state is not the state itself, but its government. It is the citizens that comprise the state. They select people to head it, whether it is a council of elders, or a larger democratic government. Citizens are people of the state, not resident aliens. They have more rights than people who are not citizens. Does one have to hold an office in the government to be a citizen? The answer is no. Aristotle believed that if they are not resident aliens or foreigners, they are citizens. They can contribute to the state and hold a symbiotic relationship with it. This philosophy directly relates to one reason that the United States coalition forces were so keen on taking out the regime of Saddam Husain. With his tyrannical government, Saddam Hussein ran the entire country. The only relation between the citizens and the state was that the citizens were in fear for their lives, being forced to exist in an environment in which any outspoken comment was punishable by death. From this philosophical standpoint, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the American government is acting reasonably in their War against Iraq. They have removed a government that does not follow the ethical rules set forth by Aristotle regarding the relationship between citizens and the state.

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote what was called the “social contract.” Rousseau believed that man is good, and must remain free from a tyrannical government. He goes further by saying that the citizens and the state have a non-verbal agreement. The citizens will follow the rules of the set forth by the state, in return for safety. Rousseau also discusses the will. The will is an opinion or feeling someone gets and does something to change it. He also explains that if the people are unhappy with a decision the government has chosen, they can attempt to make changes to the decision. At a smaller scale, individual wills are distinct from the general will. The individual has different interests to satisfy his needs. Prior to the War in Iraq, citizens of the country were barely able to speak. The regime of Hussein did not tolerate difference of opinion; there could be no individual will. In order to stop individual thinking, the Iraqi government attempted to brainwash its citizens. During the war, there has been a clear evolution in individual will within the Iraqi population. “Most of the citizens are happy and very personable towards us, you can really tell they are glad we are there, and then there are others, the ones who carry out the road side bombing and suicide attacks that wish we would leave.” Specialist Michael Voiles is quoted. Without the war there, would be no form of individual will; there would exist a general will set forth by the government which would not comport with Rousseau’s theories. The removal of the individual’s ability to have free will is another reason why the war in Iraq is justifiable.

The principle of utility speaks of happiness, and giving that feeling to the greatest number of people possible. This is what our actions should be based on. The end result of an action must result in the greatest number of people being happy. The American government seems to pursue this line of reasoning with regards to this war. The country of Iraq is nearly thirty million in population. Of these thirty million people, twelve percent stood by the decisions and supported Saddam Hussein’s Regime. These facts provide inescapable justification for the American government to pursue a means to an end strategy for foreign policy in the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government. The theory of utility is not perfect; it only describes what is good for the majority. So the question arises, is it ok to sacrifice American troops and small amounts of the Iraq population to solidify the happiness of the rest of the nation? It is certainly worth considering and strictly following the utilitarianism standpoint, one must conclude that it is. This is because it is only focused on the outcome of the action, not the action itself. Being that the United States is a powerful nation; the outcome will be whatever they want it to be. Therefore, the action may appear irrelevant, but leaves one to question where the theory of utility holds the rights of the individual.

Those who are not pleased with the war in Iraq may have their feelings about what is right and wrong. Certainly, a utilitarian stance is contrary to the Deontologist viewpoint. According to the moral philosophies on Immanuel Kant, in order for an action to be morally justifiable it must be able to become a universalized law. For those who do not support the war in Iraq, it is easy to see that the sacrifice of a single innocent is not universally applicable. In accordance to the categorical imperative, other countries opposed to our form of government would be justified in coming here and proclaiming war. By agreeing with Kant, people who oppose the war think that President Bush has his own personal reasons for the war in Iraq, and if he put aside those reasons he would have a clearer vision of what the ideal situation should be. Of those personal reasons, many believe oil and land are his ulterior motives in the war.