Consider President Obama's action of ordering a US military intervention in Iraq. Apply Just War Theory.
The aggression involved in the US intervention in Iraq against the ISIS was at odds with the primary values of civilization. The war waged by the Isis on the Christian and Yezidis was a massacre. The Obama administration agreed to go to war because the intervention was morally justified based on the condition of the Christian and Yezidis in Iraq. Even though the realism theorists argued that moral concepts can never be applied to foreign policy, the Obama policy was convinced that the war was a just cause based on the jus ad bellum. Just Ed Bellum has six conditions that must be met before the decision for military intervention is made. The six criteria for the justice of war include: The cause must be just, the war must be sanctioned by proper authority, the war should be fought with the right intentions, armed conflict should be a last resort, the good resulting from war must be proportional to the bad, and there must be a reasonable chance of success
The first criterion is the just cause. The cause must be just is a condition that requires that the war must be in a just cause. The Obama administration was requested by the Iraq leadership to intervene a to help the Christian and Yezidis who were blocked in the mountaintop and were suffering from hunger and thirst but could not come down the mountain because they risked being killed by the ISIS. The Obama administration, therefore, has a just cause to go to war to help on the humanitarian ground. The order meet the condition of just cause because the intention was to protect the innocent Christian and Yezidis from the aggressive regimes of the Isis/ISIL who were violating the basic right of the Christian and Yezidis
The second criteria are Sanctioned by a proper authority. The military intervention was sanctioned by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has an authority laid down by the state's constitution and was publically declared as a legitimate government. The order meets the condition of sanctioned by proper authority because the Iraqi government asked the US to intervene; the United States met the criteria of justice of war
The third criterion is the intention. The United States might have other intention but the predominant intention was to help the countless Iraqis that had been displaced. The order meets the condition of intention because there were other families that had been rounded up by the ISIL to protect them from mass execution and protect vulnerable population such as women and children from enslavement.
The fourth condition is the last resort. The Isis had one goal which was to enslave women kill men with the hope of eradicating other religions in Iraq. The Christians and the ancient Yezidis regions groups were their targeted and they never intended to spare them neither did the ISIS give any demand for a companion. The order meets the condition of last resort because the ISIS was not reasonable people and the state had a policy of non-negotiation with terrorists.
Therefore, the war was the last resort that the Iraq government had and they could not do that alone without military assistance.
The fifth criterion is the probability of success. The Iraq government realized that they could not fight Isis alone, so they invited the American government to intervene. The American government was sure they could defeat Isis because they had the technical expertise of military warfare and the resources to win the war against Isis. The order meets the condition of the probability of success because the US and Iraq government could foresee success in ending the Isis dominance of the region through war
The sixth criterion for justice of the war is the proportionality of the good and the bad. The response for going to war against the Isis in Iraq was proportionate. For example, there were thousands of Christians and Yezidis in that region that was under attack and execution by the Isis. the order meets the condition of proportionality because the potential casualties from Isis execution and united states intervention was proportional but the good that would be secured by going to war against the Isis outweighed the evil that would occur by killing the Isis because the Isis had been perennially killing Christian and other religious groups that did not accept their faith (infidels). Not going to war against the means that the Isis would continue to terrorize the Iraq people, and destroying the property
Apply (Act) Utilitarianism. Would Utilitarianism say that this order was morally permissible?
This order was morally permissible because act utilitarianism argues that the purpose of morality or any action should be to make life better, increase the amount of pleasing and reduce pain and unhappiness. The Iraqi Christians and Yezidis were being persecuted and some of their women enslaved by the ISIS. The increase their pleasure of living in the country and reduce pain, the ISIS had to die because they had already refused to step down. There was a need for force against the Isis if the force could bring happiness and pleasure to many people in Iraq who lived in fear of the Isis.
Apply Kant's Means-Ends principle. Would Kant say that this order was morally permissible?
The Kantian theory is founded on the arguments that as long as the end is good, the means to achieving that end was not important. The categorical imperative argument implied that humanity should be treated as an end in itself and not a means to an end. Therefore, if the ISIS were treating the Yezidi and Christians in the Sinjar Mountain as a means to an end, then they did not deserve to live. Based on the Kantian theory, the American govern was justified for their military intervention in Iraq
Do you think the order was morally permissible?
The order was not morally permissible because the American government used force instead of empowering the Iraq people to win the war over the Isis. "Permitted" is considered the lowest bar or any moral action or behavior. The act of terrorism is not socially sanctioned and neither is it legally sanctioned. The US stepping in to help the Iraqi government stop the Isis terrorist is therefore morally justified but not morally permissible. Moral objectivisms do not allow for intolerance to other religions and this is the mistake made by the Isis that they wanted to subject the Yezidi's to their moral objectivism which clearly amounts to intolerance. The order was therefore not morally permissible but was morally justified because the Isis presented a substantial danger to the people of Iraq especially the Yezidis and Christians that was immediate and imminent.
Cite this page
Essay Sample on US Military Intervention in Iraq. (2022, Oct 20). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/paper-example-on-us-military-intervention-in-iraq
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- The Sons and Daughters of Liberty - Essay Example on American History
- Essay on Documentary Analysis: 13th (2016), The Mask You Live In (2015)
- Paper Example on Terrorism
- Dennis Kearny and Wong Chin-Fu Paper Example
- The Ministry of Transportation in Canada Paper Example
- Essay Example on the Cold War: A Conflict Between Two Superpowers
- Post-WWII U.S. Economics: Power, Resources & Labor Conflict - Essay Sample