Worldwide War Project - Essay Example

WORLD WIDE WEB PROJECT: WAR THE PROBLEM The most powerful of war was presented by the philosopher Carl von Clausewitz when he d that "war is the continuation of policy by other means" < plato.stanford.edu>. It is the deliberate use of force to solve political issues with opponents intended to compel them to "fulfill our will." This brutal and ugly concept remains the core of human history and social transformation that defines many aspects of the human character. At the same time, this cruel reality give rise to a number of moral and ethical questions related to war practice. Thoughtful people are asking themselves: is war really necessary Is it wrong or right How can it be justified without taking into account the fate of the opponents Can we find a less violent method that can solve our disputes What are our obligations and what are our privileges during war Most important of all, when should we declare war Principally there are 3 schools of thoughts. The first one introduces the "just war" concept. The second is called Pacifism and the third is Realism. The three are totally different than each other. Pacifism believes that there is no moral justification of war. Realism on the other hand believes that there is no such thing as morals in international relations and a moral justification is not required. The only thing that matters is the country and national interests. The just war theory explains that a nation should justify the war before it wages war and it forms the basis of the present international law. Both the three ideologies play an important role in determining if a country will go to war or not, depending on the relative support to each ideology and the effectiveness of the arguments used by the leadership to rally the masses. THE SIDES The Opponents Let's take the war on Iraq as the main theme for this project. Pacifist, and those "just war supporters", who think that there was not any justification for launching the war are at the forefront of opposing this war. The anti war movement reflected the basic pacifist belief that war can never be justified and it criticized different war justifications and complained against sending the American children to attack another nation. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen (according to Michel Moore's "September 11") The reports by the government on Iraqs weapons were dismissed by the war opposition as fraud. They believed that the Iraq war will most probably increase the already existing hatred towards the United States throughout the Arab world. The government was accused of ignoring the main source of instability and anger in the region, which is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and instead was creating more instability in its quest for "Oil" resources. The anti war activists described the major outcome of the Iraq war. Just like any other war, the results would be a shocking loss. Those who will die will lose their future; their families will lose their beloved ones. Those who are wounded and disabled will lose hope and aspiration. The attacked nation will lose property, environment health and resources. It will be an American responsibility to rebuild what was destroyed and some believed that the money required for the war should be used to improve local conditions in the country and that such a responsibility should be avoided by not avoiding the whole idea of war. This motion was raising proportional to the increased causalities among the American soldiers in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were discovered. No real stability in Iraq was created. And the Arab population in the neighboring countries labeled the new formed government in Iraq an American puppet. The anti war activists believe that the American public was misguided by the administration about the real reason of the war in Iraq. In their view, all the justifications presented to justify the war were proved to be manipulated by the government. Anti war officials add several other points to the argument. They believe that the war with Iraq destabilized the U.S relations with its allies and now the United States is losing support to fight the war on terror. Many countries that were initially part of the coalition pulled out their troops. Furthermore, the war in Iraq diverted the U.S. efforts that should have been focused to arrest Osama bin Laden and fight the remains of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Instead, the Iraq war inflamed Islamic fundamentalism, and created a new generation of anti- American jihadists. The American government is also accused of not doing all the necessary to protect the Iraqi population. The country is in danger of possible civil war. Plus, a refuge problem evolved after the war and that is ignored. Thus the pro war side is accused of further endangering ordinary Americans lives, and putting Iraqi lives in danger. The Support Before the beginning of the war the United States government presented different arguments to "justify the war" for public support. Those realists who supported the war also made several arguments to prove that the war was an American interest. The American administration said that it believed in several high level security reports that indicated Iraq's continuous expansion of its chemical and biological weapons program. The "high confidence reports" also indicated that Iraq possessed proscribed biological and chemical capabilities and that within a year; Iraq may be capable of producing nuclear weapons for possible used against American forces, citizens and/or allies. The war supporters tried to add another dimension for their justification. They presented Saddam Husain as the evil dictator and a real threat to all the surrounding American allies and who is also a danger to his own people. According to them it was up to the United States and the international community to go in and "liberate" the people of Iraq from his iron grip. In their view, the anti American sentiment in the Arab world is growing because Saddam always appeared victorious. He never lost control over Iraq after desert storm and he always projected himself as the only Arab leader who stood against the American and western imperialism. His stand is inspiring those who hate America and to stop this sentiment, he should be removed. In short, the pro war individuals tried to completely define their Iraq war plans as just and a moral obligation for the security of the American, their allies and to improve American position and restore its strength in the international community. Time went on and the government decided that it had the necessary public support. The war was launched and the Iraqi dictator was removed. But the real challenge for the war supporters had just begun. As I have mentioned in the opposition section, the government and the war supporters were faced by a stream of acquisitions. However they continued to insist on the importance of this war and its justification. To them it is their moral obligation to spread democracy in the Middle East. Saddam was just the beginning. And his removal started many movements in surrounding courtiers demanding a fast change towards democracy. Such movements are anti-American in principle however, according to war supporters, the driving force behind their creation is simply the American ideology of justice and freedom and that will soon be realized and appreciated. Iraq war supporters normally try to stick to the original reports about Iraq weapons of mass destruction. They claim that such weapons were hidden or transferred to Iran as soon as the war was launched. They dismiss criticism of losing focus on the war against terror in Afghanistan and argue that Pakistan's mixed intentions and capabilities were the real reasons behind any limitation on the Afghani front. They dismiss charges of moral responsibility for what happened to the Iraqi public, they believe that the current situation is a result of internal unrest caused by the Iraqis themselves. They believe that the American troops are also helping the Iraqis stabilize their country apart from helping them rebuild what was destroyed by the war. They argue that pro Americanism in the Arab and Muslim countries did not increase after the Americans rescued Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. But just after the American reaction to the terrorist attacks the number of Islamic jihadis was increasing. THE SITES In this paper, both the opposition and the pro war point of view were presented. The war on Iraq was the main theme and I examined the moral background and ethical idea from which both sides are launching their argument. It is my personal opinion, it is possible that both sides agree on ethics; however they disagree on the method that should be used for best results. Pacifists emphasize that war is a total wrong, while "just war" believers stand is divided depending on individual views. Realists, as well, may or may not support the war depending on how they view the outcome. The following sites were used to compile research and material for this project: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ This article is from the library of Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. It offers an easy to read and a comprehensive account on pacifism, realism and just war theories. All three ideologies are explained neutrally in detail. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_7_120/ai_99988462/print "Sorrows of war" is the title of this article and here, the author reflects on the sorrows and pain war can cause to the population. The opinion is somehow pacifist. And the writer refers to the war on terror, Iraq war and others. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_56/ai_n16462580/print An article by Daniel M. Bell, where he presents interesting thoughts about "just war" and what is it good for. Daniel argues about the importance of the justification of war and if a war against terrorism should also be justified. http://fanonite.org The Fanonite is one of the interesting anti war blogs I ever encountered. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a researcher at Spinwatch, a PhD candidate at the University of Strathclyde and an occasional lecturer at the Strathclyde, Glasgow and Stirling Universities, his blog is very well organized and it reflects thoughts on different conflicts around the blog. Perhaps he is more of an anti-American government than anti-war. However, Idress is well known for the credibility of his sources. He had offered an interesting point of view on current issues that, in my personal opinion should be read by both war supporters and their opposition. http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/Military/index.asp This site was launched by Lawrence M. Hinman, a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego. It contains excellent multimedia resources on the ethics of war, peace and terrorism. Some of the articles also address different other areas like torture and other material is dedicated to educate military leadership on their ethical responsibilities during war. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm This is a nonprofit organization that views the American leadership as good for both America and the world. In the organization's view the American leadership, in order to remain strong and effective, requires military power, diplomacy and commitment to moral principles. The site contains excellent pro-war documents and articles archive. One of the interesting articles in this site was "Liberate Iraq" by Reuel Marc Gerecht. It reflects the basic background used by the American leadership to wage war against Iraq. Read More