Dear Jewlz,
"Good" is a matter of morals and not always an objective term. What's
good for one, is not good for the others. Common good doesn't always
exist. Therefore, a question such as "Why was it good that U.S. went
to war with Iraq?" immidiately assumes:
- There was some good in that, people's motives are basically "good" -
this could be argued upon. Take the Hobbsian approach, for example,
that views humanity basically as a bunch of war-mungers and bad-doers,
who need to be restrained (hence a support in a strong authority that
would block their misdeeds).
- There is such a thing as common good, something that is good for us
all. I'll refer to another great thinker. Karl Marx did not think that
all of us view reality, or our interests and "good" at the same way.
Our perception of reality depends upon the environment in which we
live. The environment shapes our consciousness, and our morals.
I could easily find several reasons why the war on Iraq was good, even
without supporting (or having any opinion, for that matter) on this
war, using philosophical and political analytical tools:
(1) Breaking of the Status-Quo: There was a dictator in Iraq, who
limited personal freedoms, caused much pain to the population, and
posed a danger to the regional stability. People like Hobbs like well
maintained status-quo - I don't. Freedom from Saddam might have broken
the status quo and brought about havoc in Iraq and in the region, but
so did the French Revolution or the Fall of the Wall in GDR (East
Germany). Where I live, there are many people who fled Iraq during the
horrible Saddam years. You should have seen them when they heard that
the regime is gone.
(2) A Little More Instability: The war in Iraq opens the way for a
series of intiatives, in the name of freedom and democracy, in the
Middle East - to the Palestinians under the Israeli occupation, to
women in Saudi Arabia, to Lebanese sects under the Syrian "status
quo". The Havoc might bring some good. Moreover, the fact that the new
Iraqi regime is potentially allied with the West, could lift a bit of
the reliance on Israel and the Saudi Arabia in the region, and open a
space for criticism against some policies of these countries.
(3) On the economic grounds, Iraq's economy couldn't have been much
worse. Saddam stole most of this rich country's resources. As it is in
free economy, the Americans or EU would argue, all sides are
influenced by free trade, once it is opened. So, it does not matter if
the US would benefit from the Iraqi petrol and its control over it -
Iraq, so would the free-economy people say, would also benefit. I must
say, that I find this argument a bit lame, but there again, since Iraq
was in such a low-point economically, it is quiet likely that the war
had opened new opportunities.
Other arguments for the war:
Richard Cohen, "Why I support war on Iraq"
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/5432732.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Jennifer Rocha "Why I Am For The War On Iraq"
http://tvitimes.tvi.cc.nm.us/insights/030311a.htm
Of course, every and each of my arguments could be dismantled or
objected - that is politics. However, if you wanted some views for the
war against Iraq, here they are. |
