Discussing last week the four principles of Neo-conservatives I wondered if these principles caused a just war in Iraq. I believe everyone knows by now that I feel that Iraq was a just war but I would like to hear from everyone else.
Principles
1) Concerned with internal practices of other countries
2) American power should be used morally
3) Being strong as possible and not relying on other groups/countries/United Nations
4) Social engineering – to not start changing from the top but start from the bottom and make change.
I think that each one of these principles can be linked to the Iraqi war. Let me know what you think.
Advertisement
July 15, 2008 at 2:46 am
I think that according to these four principles the neocons believe, it was a just war in Iraq. Iraq may have had a strong goverment years ago, however recently they did not and citizens were living under an evil regime. The internal practices within the country caused concern to the US and other countries for valid reason. I am wondering how number 3/4 can be linked though…what did you think were the links?
July 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I do not feel that the Iraq War is just. I think that these principles are not just for legitimizing a war. To look at each principle on it’s own, one might conclude that it is right to invade in extreme circumstances, but they do not hold water collectively to support the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
1. Internal practices: If neocons are so concerned with the internal practices of another country, then why didn’t (don’t) we invade Burma/Myanmar, N. Korea, Russia (Chechnya), the Sudan, or Zimbabwe, based on this principle? These governments oppress their citizens as well. I know that national interests played a significant roll in the focus on Iraq, but we hadn’t even finished the job in Afghanistan. Based on this principle, the war in Iraq is selective and unfair to other oppressed nations without vital natural resources and historical animosity.
2. Power used morally: I don’t feel that this was the case for the invasion of Iraq. To say that we prevented a WMD attack by preempting it is faulty, just like that intelligence. Our power wasn’t used to protect the citizens of Iraq (or the rest of the region) after the fall of Saddam, either. Plus, it’s not being used morally to defend others in the world who are oppressed (see above).
3. Unilateral action: I don’t feel like the situation in Iraq was so dire that it warranted unilateral action. We should have waited for multinational support and conclusive evidence of WMD stockpiles.
4. (I was under the impression that neocons do not believe it is the duty of the US to engage in any social engineering) Under that premise, I think it is irresponsible to invade a nation with out plans for stabilization or reconstruction, especially when one of your main objectives is to bring democracy. We simply succeeded in turning the population against us and democracy, accommodating and promoting an insurgency, and getting ourselves into a quagmire.
That said, I don’t think it is a good idea to simply pull out of Iraq now that we’re there. We owe it to that region to stabilize the nation, but it should be done efficiently and with less military force.
July 17, 2008 at 2:26 am
One could argue that these principles could justify the war; however, if you look at it from another perspective some could argue that American power was not used morally (loss of many civilian lives in Iraq, torture cases, etc.). Though America has some allies in the war, there isn’t an international coalition like the one we saw in the first Gulf War and other wars that preceded (#3). In this case, the third principle relates because the US isn’t relying on the UN or other countries to fight the war in Iraq. I am not sure about number 4 though….
July 19, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think with the Iraq war principle number four does not fit so much because they took out the top and then try to change the country. But the first three most definitely.