John Wallace Blog Post 4
John Wallace
Blog Post 4
When is war justified? A look at American justifications for war.
In the world of ethics, there seems to be a general consensus that war is a terrible prospect for all parties involved. Many argue that the destructive nature of war has been never worth the potential benefits of diplomacy, which is an assessment that I happen to agree with. However, countless examples in history have shown that, in extreme cases, war can be a necessity over diplomacy. This is commonly in the form of wars of full-on aggression, where one nation invades another without any provocation. Many people liken wars such as these as completely morally bankrupt, devoid of any and all justification.
This lack of moral component has been a topic of heavy debate among many in the profession of international politics and even philosophy. Forcing such wars into the binary term of “Immoral” lacks basic subjectivity. To some, the invasion of Iraq had no moral basis for it; yet others believe it to be a just war in terms of American security under the one percent doctrine. A doctrine that stipulated that even a 1% chance of a massive threat, such as the existence of WMDs in Iraq, would lead to an immediate and lethal response. As we know, the reports that Iraq had WMDs were completely false; something that the American government likely knew before deciding to invade Iraq. This is an example of a country justifying a purely offensive war.
Another, more insidious example of American justifications of war would be that of Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. An incident where the USS Maddox was fired upon two times by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in August 1964. The second attack is what would cause the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, paving the way for full American involvement in the Vietnam war. At the time, American faith in the war was at an all-time high with strong anti-communist fervor after the recent Korean war; a war where the USA and its NATO Allies valiantly protected South Korea against the communist threat. Recently declassified documents have revealed that the second attack on the USS Maddox was a complete and utter hoax, one forged by the government to give justification for involvement in the Vietnam War.
These are just two examples of the American government manipulating the public and the international community at large to justify war. While many blame the military-industrial complex for its potential role in the lie, It is no secret that the American public is susceptible to misinformation and even propaganda. A problem that is likely only the be exacerbated by the meteoric rise of the internet.
Great read, John! You included two perfect examples of the American government using 9/11 and the suspicion of Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists/developing WMDs to get everyone on board with the war by the 'rally round the flag' effect we discussed in class. He framed the war as a matter of terrorism and national security instead of his own ulterior motives like disposing Saddam Hussein’s regime and transforming Iraq into a democracy. This ties directly into the just war theory we discussed last class: unwittingly used by leaders who manipulate the fact that not all wars are bad, and some can be good. Jus ad bellum is a set of criteria that you must have for entering a war - the Bush administration brought America into war for the cause of spreading democracy/peacebuilding but their actions for going to war were not just in my opinion (the way they undertook it). I totally agree with you that the American public/CIA is susceptible to misinformation and error; the Curve Ball story demonstrates that the CIA does not always get everything right and sometimes leaders drive the nation into war under false pretenses.
ReplyDeleteGlobalization also seems to harbor some violence, so it seems that the internet coupled with that is exacerbating the problem of entering the war under false pretenses/framing it differently.
I definitely agree with these examples. The sheer number of them is truly astounding and they don't even have to apply to direct wars. The controversial overthrowing of democratic Iranian prime minister Mohhamad Mosaddegh in favor of the autocratic monarchy is an example where the US government ignored morals to protect their interests. Another example would be the sinking of the USS Maine, a mechanical failure marketed as a sovereign attack that paved the way for America's war against the Spanish in 1898. It's an incredibly common tactic used by the US government.
Delete