I wrote an essay for my Military Ethics class. Love it, hate it, let me know. Thanks. "Recently, there has been a tremendous outpouring of anti-war sentiments from citizens of the United States and its allies. These sentiments are directed towards the imminent military action that President Bush wishes to pursue against Iraq. Demonstrations and rallies have been denouncing the potential war in many cities. Many foreigners from such countries as Finland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden are volunteering to be human shields to deter the U.S. air campaign in Iraq. These anti-war activists are opposed to the, in their opinion, un-ethical nature of President Bush’s reasons for going to war. However, when taking a closer glance at the situation, it is not as clear cut as the activists believe. Bush’s war aims are very clear. He wishes to remove Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and destroy its means of producing such weapons. He also wishes to punish Hussein for his links to the Al-Qaida terrorist network, which was responsible for the World Trade Center attack. According to the Just War theory, America is justified in waging what can be classified as a punitive war. In addition to the gross governmental negligence in the protection of human rights discovered in the Persian Gulf War of the early nineties, there have been an overwhelming number of children dying in the Hussein regime. Because of the loss of life, America would also be justified in a humanitarian intervention. Iraq’s state sovereignty would be forfeit due to its crimes against humanity. According to the Just War Theory, there are two viable ethical reasons for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. A war with Iraq would also fulfill the generally accepted version of the Right Intentions principle, which dictates that among the intentions for going to war, the dominant reason must be a just one. In addition to the ethical reasoning, there are numerous political reasons which necessitate a war against Iraq. A logical conclusion of a military action accomplishing the above goals would result in the installation of a new political leadership in Iraq. A new regime would most likely stabilize the oil reserves held by Iraq. The ousting of Saddam Hussein would also allow U.S. military forces to leave the Middle East, removing a large source of animosity from the countries in that region. Al-Qaida might find less support among the nations of the Middle East if our military presence was withdrawn. In conclusion, there are legitimate ethical and political reasons for the United States to go to war with Iraq. The anti-war protesters that are becoming so prevalent in the news could be caught in a situation in which they lack sufficient knowledge. A closer examination of the situation could prove illuminating for the world.
I agree with what you wrote and it is hard to critique this essay, but it seems to me you don't address the issue of ethics enough (right or wrong)...It seems your essay presents more of a position and a point of view without examining the impact...Perhaps you could examine the alternatives of military tactics and why a certain choice is not only the best, but best supports an ethical stance... It also could be the scope of your essay is irrelevant to my suggestion. I don't know. Either way, good luck on your pursuits...
Don't forget the view of Arabs around the world who are more willing to discount the facts about Saddam and his regime but see this more as a holy war with America targetting Arabs. They feel America is unfairly targetting Arabs in general...as if they themselves are under attack. Most of them love America's culture and opportunity. However, they deplore America's foreign policy. As recently seen in interviews with many Egyptian Arabs, they see America as turning to colonialism now whereas before America was never one of the countries to colonize. They think this is America's first step to colonizing the ME and it will not end with Iraq but, rather, continue. They mostly don't believe in America residing on Arab land no matter what the reasons whether justified or not. They believe this is more related to protecting Israel and controlling the ME wealth more than anything else. In my opinion, many Arabs tend to see things more in black and white than in specifics of cause and effect. They won't look at how Saddam has been given every opportunity to disarm. Some or most would rather Saddam continue on regardless of how much of a bad person he is or his evil deeds in the past/future rather than have Americans and Christianity occupy Arab land. They think we will never leave. Instead, they will look at the US as being unfair and unjust toward Arabs. That is probably what I would see given all the negative press and propaganda coming from over there. Let's face it...who would you congregate to in this situation...those of a similar religion and race or those of a Western culture that has consistently been demonized by Arab countries and extreme Islam over the years? If any of us were Arab living in an Arab country, then none of us would probably agree or fathom to understand what this is all about. It's not like we haven't given peace a chance. How many more years does Saddam need? The man won't change. He showed just that in his interview with Dan Rather as he projected this whole thing was about him and whether he is still alive or not as gauging whether he won the war or not. He thinks he won 1991 because he is still alive. Iraq and its people could be casulties but as long as he is around with a few of his henchmen then all is well and he is victorious. How arrogant, conceded, and caring is that? France and other countries think more inspections will help. They fail to see that continued inspections mean continued games and manipulation of the UN by Iraq and Saddam. They are unable or unwilling to come to the conclusion which will result which is they will never give the level of cooperation necessary to disarm willingly. If we were more like Saddam, then we would have just finished off Iraq in 1991 or in 1998 when inspectors were kicked out. In conclusion, I don't think you can convince anyone who has their mind made up for their own reasons whether this war is justified or not. Everyone has their own perceptions of reality based on the information they are fed. Their lives, their experiences, their news, their culture, their religion, etc. all shape one's own perceptions of the turn of events. Many people just see this as war is bad and innocent civilians will die in a war. They fail to see what the future of innocent civilians will be with Saddam left in power. Some are short-term thinkers and others are long-term thinkers. Some just care about what is happening now. In the end, it really is up to our president to make the decision as to what is best for our future and the future of our allies. Public opinion is not going to sway a president because he has the necessary info to make this decision...we don't. Hitler as shown what can happen if one is allowed to go unchecked while continuing to proliferate and hoping for the best(as many in Britain's parliament hoped for while laughing at Churchhill's concerns at the time). That almost certainly has taught us a lesson in how to handle future dictators who have a "go their own way" attitude. I don't agree with all of our foreign policy. However, I don't believe you can leave a dictator in power who continues to defy the will of the international community and has been given every opportunity in the world to come into compliance. These statements are my perceptions...anyway.
It's a well-written essay, but you might consider throwing in a few Dune quotes to spice it up a bit.
Remember you ask for this Take my comments with a large caveat. This paper is for your professor/class. You might want to write what the prof wants to read (which you may have very well done). "Recently, there has been a tremendous outpouring of anti-war sentiments from citizens of the United States and its allies. These sentiments are directed towards the imminent military action that President Bush wishes to pursue against Iraq. Why is Bush pursuing military action in Iraq? Those poor Kurds (oh the irony now that Bush gave them and their sacred human rights up to the Turks) Those poor Shiites WMD - nuclear (which likely only exist in the minds of the Bush Admin) WMD - biological and chemical Iraq's connections with terrorists Iraq's connections with radical, fundamentalist, militant Islamic groups Iraq's connections with Al-Qaida Iraq's connections with the Al-Qaida "network" US and its allies economic interests (THE reason for the first Gulf War) Demonstrations and rallies have been denouncing the potential war in many cities. Many foreigners from such countries as Finland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden are volunteering to be human shields to deter the U.S. air campaign in Iraq. Why are people demonstrating against Bush and the war in Iraq? Bush Admin announcing that the US would unilaterally dispose of Saddam Bush Admin announcing weekly a new reason to invade Iraq Bush Admin announcing that the UN is no longer relevant Bush Admin pressuring the UN about Iraq, in the middle of the US Congressional midterm elections Despite its irrelevancy, pursuing Iraq disarmament via UN Security Council resolutions Bush Admin strong arming the UN Security Council to include "dire consequences" in the resolution language Bush Admin disingeniously announcing that Saddam could have the bomb by Christmas (2002) Bush Admin announcing that "the Iraqi people love us" Bush Admin waiting to share US intell on Iraqi WMD (which proves the point that disarmament is not their highest Iraq priority) Bush Admin calling NATO irrelevant Bush Admin calling long time allies France and Germany "Old Europe" Bush Admin announcing the US had a plan to protect Iraq oil fields during the invasion (but not particularly the innocent Iraqi civilians) Bush Admin announcing that a US general would run Iraq after the invasion, despite the wishes of Arab nations Bush Admin announcing that Iraq would be made a democracy (despite what Iraqis might want) Political instability from a regime change in Iraq Increased hatred from Arab Muslims, after the war Increased recruitment from radical, fundamentalist, militant Islamic groups, after the war More terrorists than before the war Decreased ally support against terrorists, after the war (due to the ongoing diplomatic blunders of the Bush Admin) Losing focus on the more important problem: the War on Terror Bush’s war aims are very clear. Regime change is the reason. This has been the stated US policy goal since the end of the first Gulf War. All of the other reasons are window dressing. Seeing that in the next sentence you disagree, then maybe Bush's reasons are not that clear. He wishes to remove Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and destroy its means of producing such weapons. How do we know that Saddam is stock piling WMD? US intell, right? The same US intell when evetually given to the Un inspection team is useless. He also wishes to punish Hussein for his links to the Al-Qaida terrorist network, which was responsible for the World Trade Center attack. The links are marginal at best. Remember the OBL statements to rally his supporters to defend Iraq. OBL said that even though Saddam is a bad Muslim and Iraq is a secular state (they run a state distillery!!!) Muslims must protect their own. IOW, Muslims must protect an enemy from an even greater enemy. Now that's an unqualified endorsement!!! The US is also relying on its not-so-great intell, to support this accusation. According to the Just War theory, America is justified in waging what can be classified as a punitive war. I can't agree here at all. In addition to the gross governmental negligence in the protection of human rights discovered in the Persian Gulf War of the early nineties, there have been an overwhelming number of children dying in the Hussein regime. Because of the loss of life, America would also be justified in a humanitarian intervention. Iraq’s state sovereignty would be forfeit due to its crimes against humanity. The US/UK sponsered Iraq embargo has lead to the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five. The US knew from its track record that this type of embargos do not reach their stated objective (regime change) and will likely cause the deaths of innocents. See Cuba. The US using Iraqi human rights to justify war is indecent. The war itself will likely see more innocent Iraqi deaths. An argument for war, albeit very weak one, is that the number of innocent Iraqi deaths will be less if the US goes to war versus continuing the economic sanctions (until Saddam dies of natural causes). This argument is predicated on the fact that the US can not help itself and will continue economic sanctions. According to the Just War Theory, there are two viable ethical reasons for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. A war with Iraq would also fulfill the generally accepted version of the Right Intentions principle, which dictates that among the intentions for going to war, the dominant reason must be a just one. If the US really followed the Just War theory to its fullest extent. After we conquer Iraq, we would have to declare war on ourself (due to our culpability in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi chidlren). A logical conclusion of a military action accomplishing the above goals would result in the installation of a new political leadership in Iraq. A new regime would most likely stabilize the oil reserves held by Iraq. What does "stabilize the oil reserves held by Iraq" mean? If our interest was solely the free flow of oil from Iraqi oil fields, we do not have to go to war. All we have to do is lift the sanctions. The ousting of Saddam Hussein would also allow U.S. military forces to leave the Middle East, removing a large source of animosity from the countries in that region. Countries? The only one I can think of is Isreal. In its current state, Iraq is a very small threat to its neighbors. Al-Qaida might find less support among the nations of the Middle East if our military presence was withdrawn. Precisely, the US needs to abandon its Saudi bases. The support that Al-Qaida gets is from the Arab people and not the Arab states. I suspect a war with Iraq will increase the rolls of militant terrorist groups, in the short term. In the long term, abandoning Saudi bases will cause the focus of such groups to shift from the US to other concerns. In conclusion, there are legitimate ethical and political reasons for the United States to go to war with Iraq. The anti-war protesters that are becoming so prevalent in the news could be caught in a situation in which they lack sufficient knowledge. A closer examination of the situation could prove illuminating for the world. I agree a closer examination is need by the US and world press. I also think that each involved country needs to thoroughly examine and publicly debate this issue. BTW. why no mention of the new US foreign policy change to preemptively protect our interests?
You should proof-read it a little more and adjust a few things to make it work better (for example, one cannot take a "closer glance" as a glance is short and limited - "look" would be prefectly fine as a replacement...) but if you like it as it - it is yours. As far as content, it is rather limited...but it is a short essay so I guess that goes without saying. Are you taking this with Fotion?
rimmy - Its just a journal entry type of thing. and at the last minute. I did it in 20 minutes. pretty good I though. And yeah, Fotion is bomb. Do you know him?
