The idea of what constitutes a just war has been discussed and debated for centuries. The questions of when and how an army should withdraw from an occupied country are relatively new ones. These questions are particularly relevant for this time because of the war against and occupation of Iraq. I will put forth the argument that the answers to these questions have to be developed in the context of the justification of the war. If the war were fought in self-defense due to an invasion by the now occupied nation, the victors are under no moral obligation to restore it. It would behoove the occupiers to not leave the nation in shambles as can be seen from the aftermath of World War I in Germany, but there is no moral imperative to do so. In contrast, if the justification of the war centered on gross violations of universal human rights occurring within a nation, the occupiers have an obligation to ensure that the citizens of that nation are in better conditions after the withdrawal than before the war.
The changing justification for the war on Iraq makes the analysis of a withdrawal all the more complicated. Initially, the war was justified as a preemptive action to eliminate a serious threat to the United States's security. The weapons of mass destruction have not been discovered in Iraq, and the evidence of their existence has proved to be very shaky at best. The removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator for the benefit of the people of Iraq has become the post-invasion justification. I believe this leaves the United States with the responsibility of rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, helping to create a legitimate, functioning government and ensuring a stable security environment. Without this, a withdrawal will leave the Iraqis worse off and so would not satisfy the humanitarian aims of the war. Satisfying this ethical obligation comes at a high cost, but it is the right thing to do. As the kindergarten adage goes, “You made the mess; you clean it up.”
What do you think? Does the shifting justification for the war affect the United States's postwar responsibilities? If deposing a dictator were the aim of a war, is the attacking nation under any obligations after this has been accomplished? Do you agree with my premise that the justification of the war determines or at least heavily influences how and when the occupiers withdrawal?
Comments
suppose i live across the street from a family. and by gossip i learn that within my neighbor's house the head-of-household regularly a) beats his wife, b) dumps toxic chemicals into the drain, and c) likes to drive 60 miles faster than the posted limit, even on my street. do i owe an obligation to society (or at least my other neighbors) to do something? does there exist a need for me to do something? what if i choose to do something and i decide to go into his house and beat him up. but in so doing, caused damages to objects in the house? and if i do go in, what do i do about the chemicals? is it my responsibility to dispose of them?
if while you are driving, you see a little boy dash out onto the street, right in front of an car, and you have the time to put your car in between the child and the other car, do you then proceed to do so, saving the child's life, but ruining both cars?
if you invade a country based on the premise that you will make the citizens of that land live better lives, by ridding it of its tyrannical leader. now if by leaving the country you in fact WORSEN the citizen's quality of life, then you cannot leave.
Posted by: jaime on Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Suppose that we accept the theory that morality is subjective. Then the only moral argument is to prove that one's moral code is inconsistent. Otherwise, all actions can be moral.
If the invader's stated goal for invading another country is to eliminate a potential threat then we cannot show anything morally wrong with withdrawing as soon as the invaded country no longer poses a threat (assuming of course that we have no other information about the moral code of the invader).
If the invader's stated goal is to ease the suffering of the people then we can guess that his moral code does not allow him to stand by and watch the people suffer. In this case withdrawing without establishing order demonstrates a moral inconsistency.
Posted by: Hesky on Tuesday, May 17, 2005
But must we accept the notion that morality is subjective? Some moral values must be universally true. Otherwise civilization as we know it simply cannot function. For example, it is morally wrong for parents (who can afford) to not feed their children. It is also morally wrong for a person to, without provocation, physically hurt another person. So, while some moral values are fluid, I argue that there exists a set of primal moral values.
Posted by: Jaime on Tuesday, May 17, 2005
I agree that moral consistency is a core piece of my argument. But if the occupying nation justified the war on the basis of human rights, I do not think it matters whether you are an absolutist or a relativist in deciding what are the moral obligations that have to be satisfied before withdrawal. In either case you must improve the conditions for those who were oppressed in order to be consistent. I have not thought through other possible war justifications to say whether this holds true for all possible just reasons.
Posted by: Cash on Tuesday, May 17, 2005