Evaluating The War in Iraq
Is the war in Iraq right? Is this not a form of terrorism?, to have U.S. troops stationed in Iraq for six year now. How about pushing our system of government onto another country, isn’t that a form of terrorism? Isn’t this wrong of the US and our fellow Americans to still believe that we’re doing the right thing, when we’ve never received a straight answer as to why we’re even in another country fighting? These are all questions we should be asking, and the answer should be, that it’s morally wrong of the U.S. to be doing so. However, many of us Americans are too blind to see this, to ask these questions, and to do something powerful about it. Many seem to look at it as though, the middle east has done wrong to us, so we must do wrong to them.
In addition, after the September 11th attacks, the United States government took it upon it’s self to punish those terrorist held responsible for it’s attacks. Among these people are: Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and anyone that represented the Al-Quaeda organization. Nevertheless after searching out these terrorist, we took them into our country, into our prison systems, and into our courts to hold justifications over their heads. Each one dying for the terror they imprinted into our once great nation. However is this really morally right? To take away life?, I don’t believe so, but our government and many others do. This is not a justification for any action.
Consequently, after finding and executing all of our said terrorist, it wasn’t enough. The U.S. took it upon it’s self to begin an unexplained war with the middle east on March 19th, 2003. And what is the reason for this? Honestly there is no true reason for this. The U.S. has been given so many reasons that the government tried to justify and that us, Americans bought into. For instance, at first we went to Iraq to find WMD’s. However there was no proof of this only suspicion. And after said invasion, there was still no evidence of WMD’s. So, moving forward, the U.S. quickly kept troops stationed in Iraq for a second reason. Which accordingly, the number of terrorist were growing. Namely they have grown and still remain at large. Finally, there were more foolish reasons about oil and other nonsense that could not reach any justification.
No matter how well intentioned the invasion of Iraq may have been, it was an act of violence and deception that has left many American men dead for no clear reason.
Tim O’Brien states in his novel The Things They Carried, “The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat” (77). This profound statement captures not only his perspective of war from his experience in Vietnam but a collective truth about war across the ages. It is not called the art of combat without reason: this truth transcends time and can be found in the art produced and poetry written during the years of World War I. George Trakl creates beautiful images of the war in his poem “Grodek” but juxtaposes them with the harsh realities of war. Paul Nash, a World War I artist, invokes similar images in his paintings We are Making a New World and The Ypres Salient at Night. Guilaume Apollinaire’s writes about the beautiful atrocity that is war in his poem “Gala.”
It is indeed sad that some people have to pay the price of criminals. However, when we see it from another perspective we might understand the reasons that may support it. The tragically events of 9/11 have change many things, in particular the safety of our people and policies of national security, as for instance the Anti-terrorism Act. The US government claims that this act is supported by several claims: one, this law is necessary to fulfill international obligations; two, many allied countries had ratified similar laws. And third, this Act provides greater protection than other legislations, (Boccabella, 2003). These legislations are not passed overnight, but after much study and critical thinking of possible consequences. What does not
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
Many people, including a number of Christian leaders, have questioned whether the war in Iraq is justified (www.AmericanValues.org). They question if it is morally permissible to have used force to remove a tyrannical and aggressive regime from power instead of just disarming it (www.AmericanValues.org). A difficult moral calculus by liberal hawks led to the decision that the opportunity to free the Iraqi people from decades of oppression was worth the risk (Huang 1). Many people would agree that freeing the Iraqi people was a good thing, but they are free now, yet we are still there!
In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.
Even though , many people have been effected by the Iraq and Afghanistan war because the number of displaced Iraqis internally and externally are estimated to be between 3.5 million and 5 million people (Iraq: The Human Cost , 2014). According to the Iraq Body Count website, there have been 186 thousand deaths due to violence in the war.
1. Arabic-Media.com (Arabic Media) Site 1997-2011, http://arabic-media.com/iraq_history.htm 2. CRS Report for Congress, 17 February, 1998, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-129.pdf
along with its allies declared war on terror which included many operations against terrorists and terrorist supporters. In the course of the war on Terror, The allied force launched a war against two predominant Muslim countries: Afghanistan- due to Taliban sheltering Osama Bin Laden and Iraq- Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of the weapon of mass destruction. Through the course of War the death tolls has crossed millions, trillions of dollars have been spent and the war is far from being over. The war which was an act of Justice had long become a war of vengeance and 15 years later the terrorism has evolved, changed its form and is showing signs of rapid increase. Did something go wrong or was it all planned to lead today’s
Take into consideration that the Constitution states that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be taken away without due process. The offenders committing the brutal, heinous crimes have not applied this right to the victims of their crimes. Why should the government take their rights into consideration when the victims rights meant so little to them? People always put forth the idea that killing is wrong in any sense, yet they don’t want to punish the people that commit the crimes. If a person is so uncompassionate for human life and not care what happens; are sick enough to harm someone else, they should also pay the price with their lives.
It is morally justified to kill criminals who have lost their right to life and whom we have a right to kill.
Use of the Death Penalty is inhumane. Most Americans view the death penalty as taking a life for taking a life. Lauri Friedman quotes Pat Bane when he states, “In the aftermath of a murder, a family has two things to deal with-a crime and a death. The death pen...
On September 11, 2001, the world realized the tragedy and destruction caused by terrorism. Marwan Abu Ubcida, a terrorist in training, said, “Yes, I am a terrorist. Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim.”(Friedman) That enemy happens to be anyone against what they believe. One such enemy meaning the US because we are against terrorism. There is no justification for terrorism and no reason for the government to try to justify it. According to Seifeldin Ashmawy in a meeting for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Near East and South Asian Affairs, “The mask of religion must be torn from their [extremist] face and they should be recognized for what the stand for, greed and power.”(Ashmawy) and Ashmawy was right. The government’s reaction is usually that of after the fact; to arrest a suspected terrorist after they prove they are a terrorist by an act of death or destruction. Why should the government have to wait to arrest those who have a great and reasonable suspicion of terrorism against them, while the country unknowingly waits for the worst? The government should be able to detain suspected terrorists without trial for the following reasons: the Protection of our nation and prevention of terrorism; the prevention of nuclear proliferation; the learning of new methods of terrorism; and the prevention of future attacks on US citizens.
A terrorist’s actions may be viewed as ‘wrong’ justification however the terrorist feels it is ‘right’. “What our leaders and pundits never let slip is that the terrorists - whatever else they might be - might also be rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions” (William Blum). Society permits justification as long as it is backed by a coherent, rational process. For example Law permits justification under specific circumstances. Known as justifiable homicide, it is defined as: the killing of a person in circumstances, which allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt. It is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances, which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it. It is said to be justifiable under the following circumstances: 1.When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law; 2.When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal; 3.When a subaltern officer or soldier kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior; 4.When the party kills in lawful self-defence. The justification for such actions is based on the intention of upholding the law or self-defence and not on the very act itself. This would be a ‘positive’ application of
This is evident in many cases throughout history. Ultimately, terrorism isn’t a means to an end, and the sacrifices for success are too great. Many terrorists aren’t able to accomplish their ill-minded goals, and people’s lives, businesses, beliefs, among other factors, will completely be in vain. To this end, it seems like terrorism cannot be justified.