Spring Break
OP-ED: The right war for the wrong reasons
by David Fried
Forum | 2/3/04
Posted online at 3:44 AM EST on 2/3/04
There is one major argument in favor of the war: Saddam had committed genocidal acts against the Kurds and generally terrorized his country and region. For the sake of liberating the Iraqi people from the oppression of this tyrant, I supported the war. However, Bush never really believed in this reason, even if he gave it lip service. That is because it is a very liberal justification. The attitude of conservatives has generally been that the United States should just worry about its own problems, evidenced by Bush's promise not to use the U.S. military for nation-building during his 2000 presidential campaign. Clearly, Bush's main concern was not with the poor, oppressed Kurds.
Humanitarian intervention provides moral justification for going to war, however, it does not provide a moral imperative. Not everything that is morally justified is good public policy. Take Vietnam. Not only did thousands of American troops die in that war, but we did not accomplish the goal of getting the communists out of North Vietnam, or even stopping communism from spreading to Cambodia and Laos. In retrospect, going in was one of the worst foreign policy decisions of the 20th century, even if it was morally justified. We should not think every war will turn out like Vietnam, but neither should we forget the lessons of our mistakes there.
There are many things besides moral justification that must be considered before going into a voluntary war. In addition to all I have mentioned, there is also the fact that we were already at war. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and we were battling them in Afghanistan. What will be the result of opening up another front before finishing off Osama bin Laden?
In the final analysis, I think Saddam's genocidal history, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, and an unfinished war with him that began in 1991, made him the right person to go to war with at this time. However, the decision to enter into war must not be a hasty one. All the points I have mentioned here must be considered, and there must be a serious debate on the merits of each decision.
Bush and the Republican party, however, did not deal with these issues. They supported the decision to go to war first, and treated everything else as an afterthought. This is why they had no real plan for how to deal with all the complications that would arise in the aftermath of defeating Saddam Hussein.
In conclusion, I believe that we need to stand with Bush in defending America's moral justification of going to war with Iraq. However, we must not hesitate to criticize the Bush administration on matters where we believe they have erred or could have done better. Criticizing the president at wartime is not, as some Republicans would have you believe, unpatriotic. On the contrary, speaking your beliefs against the government is the most patriotic thing you can do.
Humanitarian intervention provides moral justification for going to war, however, it does not provide a moral imperative. Not everything that is morally justified is good public policy. Take Vietnam. Not only did thousands of American troops die in that war, but we did not accomplish the goal of getting the communists out of North Vietnam, or even stopping communism from spreading to Cambodia and Laos. In retrospect, going in was one of the worst foreign policy decisions of the 20th century, even if it was morally justified. We should not think every war will turn out like Vietnam, but neither should we forget the lessons of our mistakes there.
There are many things besides moral justification that must be considered before going into a voluntary war. In addition to all I have mentioned, there is also the fact that we were already at war. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and we were battling them in Afghanistan. What will be the result of opening up another front before finishing off Osama bin Laden?
In the final analysis, I think Saddam's genocidal history, his repeated violations of UN resolutions, and an unfinished war with him that began in 1991, made him the right person to go to war with at this time. However, the decision to enter into war must not be a hasty one. All the points I have mentioned here must be considered, and there must be a serious debate on the merits of each decision.
Bush and the Republican party, however, did not deal with these issues. They supported the decision to go to war first, and treated everything else as an afterthought. This is why they had no real plan for how to deal with all the complications that would arise in the aftermath of defeating Saddam Hussein.
In conclusion, I believe that we need to stand with Bush in defending America's moral justification of going to war with Iraq. However, we must not hesitate to criticize the Bush administration on matters where we believe they have erred or could have done better. Criticizing the president at wartime is not, as some Republicans would have you believe, unpatriotic. On the contrary, speaking your beliefs against the government is the most patriotic thing you can do.
