Retrospective Justifications for Controversial Wars Posted by Shadi Hamid

Blair's recent statement that he believes the Iraq war would have been justified even in the absence of WMDs reminds me of the difficulty I've always had with the word "justified." I think it's undoubtebly true that Iraq - and the Middle East - is better off now than it was under Saddam and than it would have been had Saddam not been removed from power. But this is not the same thing as "justified." This, of course, leads us to into difficult terrain regarding consequentialism and how we judge doing the wrong thing for the right reasons - or the right thing for the wrong ones - or, worse, the wrong things for the wrong reasons which lead, somehow, to producing the right outcomes.

For me, the relevant questions regarding Iraq were always the most difficult to answer:

1. Were we against the war because of its consequences, or despite them?
2. Is what makes such wars immoral the fact that they are pre-emptive, or, rather, is it that preemption, as an empirical matter, fails more often than it succeeds?

These are, I suppose, questions of a philosophical nature. Then there are the counterfactuals.

1. What if Iraq had succeeded?

And then there are questions of how we will come to view past events through the prism of present ones:

1. What if Iraq succeeds? 

How will we make such retrospective judgments and justifications, particularly as Iraq in 5 or 10 years may very well turn out to be the most democratic country in the Arab world (yes, I know, that's not saying much but it's still something).

Comments

[Eric Martin]

I think it's undoubtebly true that Iraq - and the Middle East - is better off now than it was under Saddam and than it would have been had Saddam not been removed from power.

Does this analysis change if you consider all of the dead, maimed, emotionally scarred and refugeed Iraqis (including the women forced into prostition in Syria and elsewhere) as citizens of Iraq and the Middle East?

Just wondering, because that might add some doubt as to whether Iraq and the Middle East is better off.

[Eric Martin]

1. Were we against the war because of its consequences, or despite them?
2. Is what makes such wars immoral the fact that they are pre-emptive, or, rather, is it that preemption, as an empirical matter, fails more often than it succeeds?

Isn't part of the moral equation the fact that wars lead to such enormous destruction and loss of human life?

[J.]

I too am struggling to make sense of these questions, but not because they are hard to answer - they aren't - but why they are being asked to begin with:

1. Were we against the war because of its consequences, or despite them? Answer - neither. I don't think you get people who are for or against war depending on the potential consequences (war is hell and all that - we knew that much). We pro-military progressives were against the war because it was unjustified, it had no rational reason other than as a neocon experiment. Iraq was never a significant active threat in 2002, either with or without its WMD program, just as Iran is not a significant active threat today or in the future against US interests.

2. Is what makes such wars immoral the fact that they are pre-emptive, or, rather, is it that preemption, as an empirical matter, fails more often than it succeeds? Answer - again, neither. Have we in the progressive community not figured out that the invasion was in fact a preventive war and not a pre-emptive war. To be pre-emptive, one must have an imminent threat present (and there was not). Preventive wars attack to negate a future threat, which was the Bush justification and approach. Wars don't fail because they are pre-emptive or preventive based, they fail when assumptions are discovered to be false and the appropriate resources are not applied.

There is no right outcome here. Our reputation in the Middle East is crap for the next few decades as a result of these acts.

[Mladen Matosevic]

Let's put things in prospective. Number of civilian casualties in Iraq seems to be 100 - 600 000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Even by most conservative estimate,100 000 on population of 31mln makes 0.3%.

So,imagine that someone decide to turn USA into Sweden and kill 1mln people in process? Not counting injured, displaced, tortured, robbed.Hey,Iraq was at least fairly secular, rights of religious minorities and women were not that bad (comparing the other countries in region). In the end,some things are better now but some are still worse. And there are many other countries in more dire need of reform.What now, take one at the time, war for next 100 years?

BTW,if goal was to create democratic Middle East,when is Egypt going to have democratic elections? And when is Saudi Arabia going to have any real elections? And when is Israel going to repel racist laws? Sapienti sat, as some wise Roman would say.

[Dan Kervick]

Iraq - and the Middle East - is better off now than it was under Saddam and than it would have been had Saddam not been removed from power.

Except for all the dead Iraqis, of course. Something tells me they were better off before. But your kind of reasoning, Shadi, is typical of the abstract, ideology-heavy discourse of the Washington schoolboys and schoolgirls who put together our foreign policies.

[Eric Martin]

My response

[neil]

Thanks for the wonderful article. I believe that Wars don't fail because they are pre-emptive or preventive based, they fail when assumptions are discovered to be false and the appropriate resources are not applied.

dsi r4

[links london]

I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. Good day!

[kabin]

Thanks u admins. good msj

[racking]

http://www.t-racking.com racking
http://www.racking-shelving.com shelving

professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,