In 2003, the
United States declared war on Iraq. The main purpose, as it was
claimed, was to take Saddam Hussein out of power, and to dismantle
his regime. Saddam was declared by President Bush as a threat to
national security, and an enemy of the United States. Bush, in
his speech addressing the nation on his decision to go to war,
said that Saddam was not only hostile, with a means of attack,
but that he was in fact in possession of WMDs.
While it was true that Saddam Hussein had had a past record of hostility,
the analysis by many did not confirm Saddam as any immediate
threat to national security. Looking at Saddam's past behavior and
style of
ruling, it was not at all a realistic assumption that Saddam
would attack the US, as it would confiscate Saddams stability and
put the power held over his people on the line.
Although the original objective of the war was a success, for Saddam
was taken out of power, and his regime was dismantled, the broader
goal proposed by President Bush of waging a war on, or against
terrorism, has been the subject of criticism worldwide. People
have
asked, not only if the goal is a realistic one, but if the efforts
in Iraq involving the removal of terrorist forces within the borders
is at all realistic considering the nature of terrorism.
In fact, since the reconstruction efforts involving the destruction
of terrorist forces in Iraq began, along with the attempted re-building
of a sustainable economy, the level of terror in the country
has actually risen. Also, the war has had a profound impact on the
local civilians of the country. Their economy is in shambles, and
they are essentially caught in the middle of the battle. As a result,
hundreds of local inhabitants of the country, not affiliated with
the terrorist force have suffered. The question must
be asked if the deaths of innocent civilians as a result of efforts
by the US to extinguish the terrorist network in Iraq by any means
exscusable? Obviously, according the the original Just
War theory, the US is blatantly disreguarding just conduct by not
properly distinguishing between civilian and enemy personell.
Of
course, people have gone to say that under "exceptional circumstances",
the killing of innocent civilians is justified as long as it was
an "unavoidable" consequence of action intended towards the enemy....Where
is the line drawn between avoidable, and unavoidable killing?
War in Iraq: images by Dan Chung and Sean Smith
When taking
a look at whether the war is being waged proportionally, according
to the Just War theory, you have to look at what the goal of accomplishment
is, and whether it is by any means proportional to what is investing
into the effort. Currently, the war is costing the US billions
of dollars, hundreds upon hundreds of lives, the respect of a good
prtion of the international community, and, it seems that the effort
is going to go on for an extended period of time.
Where should
we draw the line?
The point in which to pull out of the war in Iraq has not been
decided upon by any means. The goal has been to set a stage
stable enough to hold elections for a new government, but if that
were to be accomplished, there would still be the problem of terror
in the country. The war has most of the nation, and much of the
world scratching their
heads,
because
the
fact
of the
matter
is,
the
U.S.
is in a state of war.
It is not important at the moment
to work on whether the war is viewed as "just" or not,
the more immediate and demanding task at hand is to decide what
the priorities of the nation are, and how to best go about
realizing and addressing those piorities.
For
more information :
The Facts: Eyes
Wide Open
A Year after Iraq War
Is Attacking Iraq Moral?
Would
An Invasion of Iraq be Just?
Iraq:
It was an Unjust War
A look into the Morality of Warfare
The War in Iraq: The Nature of Insurgency Warfare
