Iraq Ethical Issues

A great argument is now present in the media about supporting the American invasion of Iraq. Is it really ethical to support such an invasion of a country?
This paper will discuss the facts starting up from political facts leading into ethical ones.
To start, we must first know that when we deal with an issue in an ethical or, to be more general, philosophical way, we should consider the issue is it should be not as it is. Meaning that, if we consider what is going has a wrong origin, then we must not consider our dealing with the consequences ethical or not.
Let’s start with some facts. * Around 2 million people were killed in Iraq since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. * The American invasion of Iraq allowed the interference
of a lot of other countries in the Iraqi situation whether it’s beneficial or not to Iraqis. * No destructive weapons, the main reason of the American war, were found. * People all over the world no longer trust the ally forces to be forces of applying justice and democracy for people in countries ruled by dictators. * The Iraqi culture was almost destroyed. * A huge amount of terrorists, threatening the whole world and especially the region, consider Iraq as the safe shelter for them. * Iraqi people are now spread into fighting groups depending on their sects and ethnic origin, thus Iraq is no longer considered a unified country.
I guess the facts mentioned above are agreed on by most people in the domain, what they might debate on is the causes of these facts.
After 9 \11, the Americans, supported by the allies, started preparing for the invasion of Iraq. Their strongest excuse was the possession of Iraq for hugely critical weapons that may harm the whole world. Let us assume that the real aim of the war was to eliminate these weapons to keep the world a safe and a better place to live in. At this point thinking of war on Iraq is not yet the only solution, thus war at this early stage is not yet ethically excused. The Americans did not provide any technical evidence that the old Iraqi government had destructive weapons nor had the intentions to attack any other country. If having the weapons means that Iraq should be attacked, then a lot of other countries should be also attacked. And if the reason is intentions, taking the invasion of Kuwait as an example, then other countries like Russia who recently attacked Georgia should also be attacked and the government should be replaced. What most destroy the American rumors of critical weapons is that after the war, these weapons just disappeared. The allies had no reason to attack Iraq, and their public aim is obviously a lie. If the whole story was based on a lie, would supporting this war be moral or ethical? The answer needs no debate, it is obviously NO. We discussed before whether the causes of war on Iraq were considered ethical, and we got to a certain conclusion. Now we are going to discuss the consequences of the war to realize whether the un ethical causes lead to ethical consequences, thus we can decide whether its ethical to support the war or not. The beginning point will be with the number of murdered people in Iraq. Latest statistics showed that over 2 million people were killed since the war in 2003. The main argument of people supporting the invasion, or at least considering it ethical, is that the American forces did not kill this number of people. They support their saying by considering that the only way for the Americans to preserve and assure their 2003 victory in Iraq is by protecting people and helping to turn Iraq into a calm atmosphere. Thus these people were killed by the groups that claim to be the resistance. Accordingly, the ethical duty is to support the Americans that want to keep Iraq in its best suit in defeating these groups that are causing genocides to Iraqis. Let us assume that this claim is true and Americans have no other reason for staying in Iraq except this. What we miss here is that in such a way of thinking we are providing this scenario: Although the American occupation of Iraq is so difficult and has a lot of disadvantages, the solution is impossible without them. According to this, the Syrian interference in Lebanon was not wrong. The Iranian interference also in Iraq is not wrong at all. Each of these countries is just trying to interfere in the way it thinks will provide the best for Iraqi people, not the way it will most help them and their own good. As a result, every country with little more power than its neighbor can occupy its land and spread problems to have a role in controlling the weaker country. Is this ethically right? Of course it is not. According to Americans, and all the free world, the Syrian interference in Lebanon is at least ‘unethical’, and so is the Iranian interference in Lebanon and Iraq. What should be applied on one should be applied on all. Rules are rules. Another result of the American war on Iraq is opening the wide door in front foreigners to interfere in the Iraq. It also gave them the excuse. The American are considered enemies to some of them, and being close they are afraid from the American enlargement in Iraq to affect them directly and indirectly. A clear example of this interference is the Syrian interference that according to Americans claims is considered a great threaten because they can control the entrance of suicidal bombers to Iraq. Also it gives the Iranians the right to have their war with the Americans on Iraqi lands and Iraqi people. Moving your war to some ones innocent having nothing to do with it is absolutely unethical and needs no proof. One more evidence for the unethical war on Iraq is that Iraq is transforming to be the safest shelter for terrorists from all over the world.
The American invasion gave these terrorists an undercover called the resistance. What I am saying here is not accusing all the resistance of being terrorists rather than trying to explain the point of view some might have. Some of these groups are committing genocides and killing a lot of people just for them being from another sect or ethnic group. But let us deal with the current situation. In such a case, is supporting the American invasion to Iraq considered ethical? Dr. Bashar Haydar in his article in the Lebanese Hayat titled “supporting the American invasion of Iraq is a moral duty” considers that supporting the American forces is ethical and is the moral thing to do. According to him, the resistance has nothing to do except ruining Iraq and increasing the amount of violence. He considers that Iraqi people should take the Japanese and German way of dealing with subject. Assuming that the Americans have nothing to do with the case, they are so innocent and they have no role in nurturing these aggressive movements and nurturing the sector and ethnic fights, which I predict to be false. After all these assumptions, what I would like to clarify is that the Iraqi situation has two totally different circumstances. The first is that Iraq is not like the Nazi Germany and its ally at that time Japan, Iraq is in the position of defense
while Germany and Japan altered from the offense zone to defense, thus they were totally exhausted, and resisting would have had no actual and logical results. Instead the Iraqis can take the French model in resisting even when the circumstances were hard, the results were marvelous. France is now one of the greatest countries in the world. The second is that we must admit that the consciousness in our Arabic world has a low level. Awareness was a lot higher in Germany and Japan. A great example of this is the Lebanese case, where after many years of wars and corruptcy, people have no problem is re-voting for the war figures and the money whales. They did so just because other good candidates are from another sect. To have a deeper look of the consequences of the American war on Iraq we must observe the effect of this war on the Iraqi economy.
Iraq is now considered a poor country even though it has the second greatest amount of black gold, oil. Its exports of oil have incredibly decreased because of the American and terrorist attacks towards the Iraqi petroleum constructions. These attacks caused a lot of loss Iraq could have benefited from especially in the previous period where the price of oil was extremely
high. Iraq is now considered almost destroyed. What we can see in the media now is rocks and deserts, I know that this might seem a little bit exaggerating, but I guess this metaphor describes Iraq now compared to other countries in the region having the same fortune of Iraq, oil. Iraqi culture is now ruined. A perfect example of that is great amount of historical documents stolen from the Iraqi library after it was bombed and burned by the American forces who pretend to be the protectors of liberty. After these three evidences I guess it is unethical to know these facts and support morally the American invasion of Iraq. Finally, I would like to finish my article by borrowing a sentence from Dr. Haydar’s article. He said that even Dick Chiney would not adapt the idea that supporting the American invasion to Iraq is a moral and ethical duty. I do not deny that the American forces are playing a huge role in defeating terrorists trying to create bases in Iraq, but what I believe is that we know and it seems that every one knows about the real aim of the war. The question here is if one out of hundreds of consequences are good, then should we become blind and ignore all the other causes and consequences of the war? Should we support this war at least by considering it ethical? I would like to keep the answer for the people especially the well-informed groups of the Iraqi society that are not affected negatively by their sects or ethnic origins.