Evaluation of U.S. Aggression Against Iraq

0
70

Is U.S. aggression against Iraq sanctioned by the U.N. more reasonable than U.S. non-aggression against Iraq?

 

U.S. aggression refers to the U.S. government and its ally British government militarily attacking Iraq with the intent of taking over the country and the U.N. Security Council support, and in contravention of international law.

 

U.S. non-aggression refers the U.S. government working out its differences with Iraq through diplomatic means and the U.S. government eliminating its own severe hypocrisy of demanding that Iraq not possess weapons of mass destruction while the U.S. and its allies do.

 

Iraq refers to Iraqi government and populous.

 

Situation:

 

There is no clear evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. Security Council has voted in favor of a U.S. government led military action against Iraq. In the vote, Russia, China, and France abstained from voting after being pressured by the U.S. to agree to its aggression against Iraq. The U.S. government and its main ally the British government proceed to attack Iraq.

 

The U.S. government is the largest possessor, manufacture, and distributor of weapons of mass destruction in the world. It has used the issue of weapons of mass destruction as a (hypocritical) pretext to justify military aggression against Iraq. The U.S. government’s underlying objective is to continue a process of securing more of the world’s oil resources for itself, and to strengthen its ally, Israel by weakening or eliminating Israel’s enemies like the Iraqi government.

 

The fundamental justification for the U.S. aggression against Iraq from the U.S. government’s perspective is the notion of ‘(divine) might is (divinely) right’. Viz., the U.S. government’s dominant military might is the choice (or extension) of God, and therefore, the U.S. government believes its exercise of its might against Iraq or any other country is God’s choice.

 

The basis for evaluation is the well-being of humanity. I.e. is humanity’s well-being more reasonably better off from U.S. government aggression against Iraq than U.S. government non-aggression against Iraq?

 

Well-being of humanity refers to the preservation of the human species. In the context of the evaluation, does U.S. government aggression against Iraq promote human preservation more or less than U.S. government non-aggression against Iraq?

 

Non-contradiction:

 

Aggression

 

1. The U.S. government belief that its might and aggressive action against Iraq are extensions of God, is problematic because if size and force of might are indicators of connection to God, then there would be a drive in the world to attain as much might as possible, and if the use of might is an indication of connection to God, then there would be drive in the world to use as much as might as possible to prove one’s connection to God. Added to these problems, we face different levels of might being extensions of God, and therefore everyone possessing might at some level would have divine justification to use their might. Hence, the U.S. government’s justification for aggression against Iraq does not bode well for humanity because it is justified on questionable religious grounds, which will encourage proliferation of arms and more armed conflict.

 

2. The U.S. government use of military aggression as a means for securing strategic resources (i.e. oil), sets an example for other countries and organizations to justify war on grounds of securing strategic resources, and in a world of scarce resources, the U.S. government’s example will encourage the proliferation of arms and more armed conflict.

 

3. The U.S. government in military aiding another country (i.e. Israel) through the severely hypocritical and questionable pretext of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction sets an example, especially considering the U.S.’s superpower status, for other countries and organizations to use possession of weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war, which in turn will encourage proliferation of arms and more arms conflict.

 

4. Though the U.S. government has the right to defend itself against threats to its existence, it is highly questionable that even if Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is such a threat to the U.S. itself to warrant a pre-emptive aggression by the U.S. (i.e. Iraq has no weapons delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S., nor has it been linked to so-called terrorism, nor has there been any direct threat by Iraq to preemptively attack the U.S.

 

Note, if the U.S. reasoning is upheld on its right to preemptively attack Iraq based on the military threat Iraq poses, then there would be numerous countries and organizations that would be in a position to preemptively attack the U.S.)

 

4.1 It is questionable that the U.S. government has a right to attack Iraq, even though Iraq may have a delivery system in place that can target the U.S. government’s ally Israel, because Iraq does not pose a direct threat to the U.S. Again, if such reasoning were upheld, there would be numerous countries that would be in a position to preemptively attack the U.S. or any other country.

 

5. The hypocritical U.S. government aggression against Iraq supported by the U.N. only through U.S. pressure, undermines the U.N. which potentially acts as a stabilizing force in the world.

 

5.1 By violating international law due to attacking another country without legal justification, the U.S. government undermines the international law apparatus which also acts a potential stabilizing force in the world.

 

6. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq, in the context of twelve years of sanctions against the Iraqi people, in which reportedly 1.5 million Iraqi’s perished from malnourishment, insufficient medical supplies, and disease directly stemming from the sanctions, demonstrates a disregard for the suffering of other human beings and human life in general.

 

7. The U.S. aggression will likely trigger retaliatory responses from various countries, organizations, and individuals against U.S. and British interests, especially in light of the increased harm done to the longtime suffering Iraqis.

 

8. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq based on unsupported hypocritical accusations sets an example for other countries and organizations to wage war based on unsupported hypocritical accusations.

 

Non-aggression

 

1. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq creates struggle within the human species, which in turn will strengthen the species.

 

2. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq exposes problems in the international system (i.e. weakness of the U.N. and international law bodies), which may provide the impetus to solve them.

 

3. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq exposes problems with the U.S. democratic system, whereby controlling political representatives are able to manipulate, influence the U.S. populous into supporting such an unjust, ominous aggression against Iraq, which then may provide an impetus to solve them.

 

4. The U.S. government aggression against Iraq if successful from the U.S. military standpoint will replace a Iraqi government noted for its own aggressions (i.e. Iran/Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait etc.) with one benign.

 

Non-ambiguity:

 

Aggression

 

There is no relevant ambiguity with the reasons against U.S. government aggression against Iraq.

 

Non-aggression

 

1. It is unclear whether or not the U.S. government aggression against Iraq will strengthen the human species, especially considering that the species is facing considerable struggle from biosphere change, poverty, disease, and viruses.

 

Non-completeness:

 

Aggression

 

1. It is unknown whether or not Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Though there is no clear evidence that it does.

 

2. It is unknown whether or not Iraq is a direct threat to the U.S.’s existence.

 

3. It is unknown to what extent the U.S. government aggression will encourage proliferation of arms, and increase armed conflict.

 

Non-aggression

 

1. It is unknown to what extent the U.S. government aggression against Iraq will cause retaliatory responses against U.S. and British interests.

 

2. It is unknown whether or not the U.S. government aggression against Iraq will strengthen the human species.

 

3. It is unknown whether or not the U.S. government aggression against Iraq will provide an impetus to solve problems with international institutions, and the U.S. political system.

 

Determination of comparative reasonableness:

 

It is highly questionable that the U.S. government aggression against Iraq will strengthen humanity, when such aggression will encourage proliferation of arms, increase armed conflict, weaken international institutions, trigger retaliatory responses, and devalue human life. (Non-contradiction, Aggression, Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8) Also, it does not follow how the U.S. government aggression can be justified on grounds of creating a possible impetus to strengthen international institutions and/or U.S. political system, when the aggression as mentioned will encourage proliferation of arms, increase armed conflict, and devalue human life. Further, it does not make sense how the U.S. aggression can be justified on grounds of potentially replacing an aggressive Iraqi government with a benign one, when as mentioned the U.S. aggression will cause retaliatory responses, proliferation of arms, increased armed conflict, and devalue human life. Hence, based on the negative consequences of the U.S. aggression significantly offsetting any positive consequences in terms of humanity’s well-being, the U.S. government aggression against Iraq is less reasonable than a U.S. government non-aggression against Iraq.

Mr. Stephen Garvey is a philosopher and writer, and publisher for Inexpressible Publications who resides in Canada.

Buy Stephen Garvey’s book (s) now:

Beyond Weakness by Stephen Garvey (Preface)

Why I Am Right : A Philosophical Investigation of Consciousness

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.