The Morality of Waging War on Iraq By Li Tsze Sun

The Morality of Waging War on Iraq

By Li Tsze Sun

Al-Jazeerah, November 27, 2004

On March 19, 2003, the United States of America launched its first series of air strikes on Baghdad. For the 22 days thereafter, a full-fledged war went on between the United States and Iraq. Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. The United States won the war, but is waging the war moral?

Let’s assess the morality by utilizing a humanitarian moral system proposed by Scholars Jacques Thiroux and Rushworth Kidder based on the five principles of life, goodness, justice, unity, and honesty/truth telling.

The two major reasons for the Bush administration to wage war on Iraq are:

1. Iraq posed a threat to the United States and the world, and therefore the United States has a moral cause upholding the Principle of Goodness.

2. Saddam Hussein is a dictator oppressing his own people, and therefore the United States has a moral cause upholding the Principle of Goodness.

So the mission of the war was to save Iraq for democracy and secure long-lasting peace and security for the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein.

Let’s first not challenge these two premises, assuming the Principle of Goodness is the moral cause for the war.

Principle of Life. A justification for a moral invasion can be that it is going to be limited in casualties. The initiating attacks on Iraq by the Bush administration can be moral on March 19, 2003 when the U.S. military bombed the building where Saddam was holding a meeting in Baghdad because the Principles of Goodness appeared to be supporting the act. Nevertheless, when the casualties on both sides were rising day by day when the war prolonged, the Principle of Life became conflicting more and more with the Principle of Goodness. By June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces including 836 U.S. military were killed, and at least 5,134 U.S. troops had been wounded. For Iraq, between 4895 and 6370 Iraqi soldiers and resistance fighers were killed during major combat operations; between 9436 and 11,317 civilians had been killed and 40,000 Iraqis injured. The figures are still rising today after the handover of sovereignty. For this reason, it appears hard to morally justify the war from today’s point of view.

Principle of Justice. Strictly speaking, according to the Just War Theory, this is not a just war because it violates at least one principle of just wars (although it started with a good cause)–the United States launched preemptive strikes on Iraq, whereas Iraq was defending itself. More importantly, it is not just for the U.S. military to use excessive or disproportionate force – so-called “shock and awe” bombing, for even a good cause. The U.S. military has used “smart bombs” or depleted uranium weapons that are likely to cause long-lasting harm to the people living on the land. It has had reckless disregard of civilian security and well being, including bombing hospitals; otherwise, civilian casualties would not have been as high as 50,000. All these are contributing to the greater immorality of the use of force.

Principle of Honesty/Truth Telling. The first reason of the Bush administration waging war on Iraq is that Iraq posed a threat to the United States and the world. It’s because people believed that Bush was telling the truth that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, before the war (March 7, 2003), the Bush administration refused to accept the report by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), of which Han Blix was director of the arms inspection team in Iraq, that says the team found “no evidence” of WMD. Moreover, during the war, coalition forces had not found WMD. Furthermore, up to now, Saddam and his bad guys have not used WMD. As it is logical to believe that a threatened and cornered Saddam would have used WMD as the last resort to fight back, people should begin to doubt the honesty of Bush and his administration, which had repeatedly said that Iraq possesses WMD. This violation of the Principle of Honesty/Truth Telling reduces the goodness of the moral cause.

Moreover, Bush also claims a linkage between Saddam Hussein and al Qa’ida or terrorist organizations, which is another legitimate cause for the threat. However, CIA director George Tenet testified that there were no “pervasive indications” of Iraq-al Qa’id links. Besides, the U.S. Department of State had not included Iraq in the list of international terrorism of 2001 when it compiled the report Patterns of Global Terrorism in 2002. This again violates the Principle of Honesty/Truth Telling, and further reduces the goodness of the moral cause.

Principle of Unity. Bush seriously violated the Principle of Unity by unilaterally giving Iraq a 48-hour ultimatum under the objection of many representatives of UN members in the Security Council. The countries that opposed the war included France, Germany, China, Canada, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and most Arab states including Saudi Arabia. When 82 percent of people wanted him to ask for UN approval before attacking Iraq, Bush went ahead on his own. He acted without tolerance, which is a decent respect for the right of other people to have ideas or at least a strong desirability of listening to different points of view and attempting to understand why. Such an act that shows no respect for others’ views, no care for others’ well-being, and no regard for others’ values and importance is immoral unless the Principle of Goodness, as well as the Principles of Life and Justice are on the side of those waging war.

Principle of Goodness. Last but not the least, the moral cause for the U.S.-Iraqi War based on the Principle of Goodness can be subject to re-examination. Many people have no doubt that the political system under Saddam Hussein is far from a democracy in which the Iraqis can enjoy more freedom and happiness. They also have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is going to be a threat to neighboring countries if he possesses WMD. This was proved by his invasion of Kuwait more than a decade ago and ruthless killings of the Kurds. Nevertheless, peoples of the world have different abilities, potentials, feelings, and needs, and therefore are unique. The spirit of freedom and democracy, therefore, is to recognize and allow for this uniqueness, and the best way is to let them live out their lives they choose. Only such freedom, as John Stuart Mill said, could ensure the best ways of life.

As for Iraq’s threat to United States and the world, it is only a possibility – a possibility which is greater or lesser depending on the degree of honesty of Bush and his administration. From hindsight that the U.S. military vanquished the Iraqi arms forces in virtually no time, it should be evident that the threat was not imminent. It was not imminent to Iraq’s neighboring countries, not to mention to the United States of America, the only superpower in the world today, which is far away from Iraq.

It can therefore be concluded that waging war on Iraq is immoral.

Dr. Li Tsze Sun is an Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences United Arab Emirates University Associate Editor, Academic Exchange Quarterly, USA

(http://www.highered.org/AEQ/summ033.htm )

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info