Revisiting the Iraq war
There has been and continues to be a tremendous amount of discussion about the reasons for the US-led war on Iraq and the implications it has for the future of international law and the world order. It is an accepted fact across the board that the stated reasons for going to war (Iraq's alleged WMD's and the imminent threat to US security etc.) were all bunk, but we should move on from that. I have in the past written both against and (theoretically) in favour of the war. Prima facie, a war not sanctioned by the UN is illegal, but even that is not the complete picture - I will leave the question of the status and validity of international law for another time perhaps.
For this post, consider the words of contemporary philosopher and political theorist Jürgen Habermas:
The matter is simple enough at first glance. A war in violation of international law remains illegal, even if it leads to normatively desirable outcomes. But is this the whole story? Bad consequences can discredit good intentions. Can't good consequences generate their own justifying force after the fact? The mass graves, the underground dungeons, and the testimony of the tortured all leave us no doubt about the criminal nature of the regime. The liberation of a brutalized population from a barbaric regime is a great good; among political goods it is the greatest good of all. In this regard, the Iraqis themselves... contribute to the judgement on the moral nature of the war.These are just preliminary words in Habermas' essay, but they bring me to what I remember watching Sheikh Mohammed Syed Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar and one of Sunni Islam's top clerics (albeit one that is not uncontroversial), say about Jihad (in its meaning as the Islamic doctrine of war). Tantawi mentioned that Jihad is permissable in two situations: (a) in self-defence against an invading enemy, and (b) in order to remove oppression of human beings where possible. (We are of course not going into the details and conditions of these two situations here.) The point is, regime change in Iraq for the end of oppression and the establishment of a rights-respecting government there seems to me to be a goal that fits the latter scenario, considering that no amount of diplomatic or economic coercion would have made Saddam Hussein mend his ways.- Jürgen Habermas, "Interpreting the Fall of a Monument", German Law Journal (Vol. 4 No. 7)
Going by this admittedly very basic analysis, would it seem then that the war itself, inasmuch as it has been the tool for ending Saddam's dictatorship and were it to leave Iraq and Iraqis better off in terms of rights and freedom from oppression, is okay or even commendable by orthodox Islamic standards of Jihad? Or is it that Muslims are concerned not with the action but with the actor, and anything with America in the lead role is automatically wrong with a capital "W"?
I am being a little coy here - Jihad is supposed to be the permissable use of force for Muslims, not non-Muslim or secular states like the United States. But does it make a difference to Iraq whether it was an Islamic state or a secular one that removed Saddam Hussein from power?
2 comments:
Yes there have been elections, and I'm not trying to disregard any 'good consequences' that may have resulted from the removal of Saddam, but what about the 'bad' consequenes, are they so easily disregarded as to allow justification of this war. Within Islam there are rules in war, but what were the rules followed in this war. The more than 100,000 lives lost, daily terror, destruction of society, and the chaos, may have been lessened had the war been planned and conducted differently. You started your post by saying we should move on from why the war was started, but I disagree, the reasons for the war obviously impact how it is conducted, and if the reason was to remove a tyrant then why was this not done decades ago. The author of the quote you posted writes as though the extent of Saddams brutally wasn't known.
Alright, I'm scrapping my earlier rule of not replying to anonymous comments, although I would much rather people signed their names when they left a remark.
Anonymous, I am of course not disregarding the bad consequences. In any war, there are and will be unwanted consequences, destruction and loss of civilian lives etc. The number of civilan deaths in this case has been around 30,000.
I am not going to go into the question of how many deaths are okay before a war becomes unjust. Would 3000 have been okay? 300? Every life is valuable, but no war can guarantee that there won't be collateral damage. Should people like Saddam Hussein then be allowed to go about their business torturing, maiming and killing at will (assuming, as was the case here, that non-military techniques will not work?)? Yes, they could have removed him many years ago but didn't and maybe that was a bad idea but it doesn't morally preclude his removal now.
The daily terror you speak of is an unforeseen consequence - I don't think the Americans thought this is how the situation would unfold in Iraq. You're right and maybe the way the war was planned and conducted could have been different so as to prevent some of the tragic results, but that does not go as far as saying that there shouldn't have been a war in the first place, does it?
As for Habermas' quote - like I said those are part of his preliminary remarks. His paper is not about justifying the war on Iraq but about the question marks around the whole issue of international law and the use of force. As well, I hope you see that I myself am not trying to argue the pro-war side. My aim here was to simply to possibly offer a perspective that Muslims might not usually consider.
Which brings me to Saira's comments. Firstly, I am not equating American invasion with Jihad. Obviously it is not, as I noted towards the end of my post. And yes, I'm looking at the whole thing consequentially - that is clear. And my point is exactly that - in terms of consequences, does it make a difference in Iraqis whether it was the US that led the war and not some Muslim country, if in the end what they have is the end of an oppressive dictatorship and the establishment of a fairer and more just society? So the parallel with Jihad goes only as far as that both would potentially have the same consequence.
To look at it in terms of the story you told, had Ali killed the man (whether out of the right or wrong intention) - the result would have been the same. The fact that he didn't has to do with his own personal state, not because the man did not deserve to be killed.
Saira, I don't think the purpose of the war on Iraq was to "re-elect America as the most powerful country in the world" or "to show us who's boss" - we're not talking about some stupid high school bully trying to impress the crowd, even though we often like to think of the US in those terms. Besides, America's reputation as the most powerful country (both militarily and economically) was and continues to be well-established, whether we're talking pre-war or post-war.
Because of these twisted intentions, this war has unleashed other oppressive elements within the country... the subsequent chaos and suicide bombings that have unleashed after the American pullout is the result of the brutal force used in this war.
Do we really think that? And if so, should we think like that? This seems to me to be the same kind of mentality apparent among Muslims all over: either deny our problems and the things we are ashamed of about ourselves by spinning some elaborate theory around them, or if not then blame them on the evil West or the Great Satan United States. Why is it so hard for us to accept that there are elements among us that have skewed visions of the world and of Islam, and that the causes of this are deeper and more complicated than simply the wrongdoings of the US or some other external source?
Finally, I'm not some pro-Republican neocon type who thinks the Bush administration is doing a fantastic job in the world. Yes, US decisions including the war on Iraq are based on self-interest, but this isn't something new. Every country acts generally in its own self-interest, not least the United States. As I said before, I'm not arguing the pro-war side or making a moral value judgement on the Iraq war - I just want to consider a perspective of it that is not usually clear in the often black and white way in which we look at things.
Finally, I think the word you meant was veneration, which is has the same meaning as reverence.
Post a Comment