Search results

Comments on Richard W. Miller's "The Ethics of America's Afghan War". Adapted from the source document.

A response to Terry Nardin's critique of the essay, "Ending Tyranny in Iraq" (both, 2005) contends that his objections related to the traditional meaning of humanitarian intervention are simply terminological; he ignores the more important issue of whether a military operation to end severe tyranny can be justified regardless of what it is called. The view that imminent or ongoing massacres are necessary before intervention is justified is too stringent & ongoing "severe tyranny" is offered as a far better standard. Although the article argued that the liberation of Iraq was an example of humanitarian intervention regardless of motive & that the broader strategy of promoting freedom/democracy contains a defensible humanitarian component, it was never suggested that any pro-democracy foreign policy constitutes humanitarian intervention. The deficiencies of the United Nations Security Council & war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib are discussed. It is concluded that there is nothing wrong with being a "humanitarian imperialist" if it means using might to advance freedom, human rights, & democracy. J. Lindroth

The opening article of a special issue, "Ethics and the Use of Force after Iraq," argues that the war in Iraq was morally justified as a humanitarian intervention. Critics contend the war cannot be considered humanitarian intervention since coalition leaders justified it on the basis of suppression of a security threat. Humanitarian intervention is defined as governments helping individuals in another state who are victims of severe tyranny. An examination of the principles of humanitarian interventions emphasizes vital distinctions between intention & motive. Iraq is described as a case of severe tyranny which included ongoing atrocities as well as pervasive forms of oppression. Attention is called to how ordinary Iraqi citizens welcomed the intervention & considered the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a blessing. The issue of international approval is discussed to argue that the Anglo-American leaders had no choice but to act alone after the United Nations Security Council failed to authorize the action because establishing freedom & democracy in the Middle East is in everyone's best interest. J. Lindroth

Part of a symposium on David Rodin's War and Self-Defense (New York: Oxford U Press, 2003) argues the despite some laudable achievements, his rejection of a plausible version of national self-defense fails. His conclusions ultimately do not hold up because of two transitions in his arguments: the move from individual to national self-defense & from the absence of world government to the illegitimacy of self-help. Focus is on liberal arguments for self-defense, whereby self-defense is the protection of vital rights or interests of individuals. Asserting that Rodin is right in rebuffing efforts to reduce self-defense to a collection of individual rights of self-defense, it is suggested that permissibility to kill in a defensive war can be rooted in a richer form of liberalism that he overlooked: self-defense wars are carried out by governments as agents of the citizens. Rodin's two reasons for rejecting the liberal view -- that it is wrong to consider humanitarian intervention & self-defense as having the same underlying rationale & use of force against a bloodless invasion is not warranted -- are countered. While Rodin sees that much of what is deemed self-defense is really law enforcement, he fails to connect the idea to the international system, which, although regulated by laws, lacks a superior authority to enforce them. Rodin asserts that under these circumstances, self-help is never justified, which is seen here as implausible. Further, Rodin's notion of proportionality means a state is not justified to defend against an invader looking to destroy the political system as opposed to the peoples; this is patently rejected. It is concluded that Rodin takes the analogy between individual & national self-defense too seriously. J. Zendejas