M3D1

.docx

School

Excelsior University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

301

Subject

Political Science

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by Unionized3usa

In your opinion, when is it morally and ethically justifiable to go to war? Analyzing Mearsheimer’s Why Leaders Lie, allows us to better formulate conclusions as to reasonings we may never fully understand when focusing on ethics and morals. It states leaders use fearmongering because “they might not be sufficiently interested in international affairs to appreciate that their country is facing a lurking danger” (2018). I agree and feel no one is more invested into a strategic decision than those primarily involved. Although no governmental institution is perfect, when it comes to heading into a just war, the overall expectation should be that lives are at stake (foreign or domestic) and the residual impact of no action could potentially sacrifice that of the U.S. National Security. If we can come to an agreement on that, then I think it constitutes going to war, whether the individual at the lowest level understands what is occurring or not. On the basis of your reading of just war principles and hurdles, how were the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya different from each other? Were they each a Just War? If not, why not? When focusing on whether just or not, the wars in these 3 countries should establish reasoning to believe that the summation of wartime categories lies within the common good for either the nation being invaded, or the nation doing the invading. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya differ in the reasoning behind their conflict. Easily identifying Libya’s concerns of civil conflict, we can determine that President Obama’s initiative on a just war was valid and in the full spectrum of what should be considered Just. Although the qualification of a war is defined, according to Libya and war powers, the “OLC concluded that the operations in Libya did not meet the administrations definition of a war” (Fisher, 2011), yet intervention due to possible genocide validated the reasoning behind the U.S. concern for the spread of terrorism which in turn may result in national security concerns at a later date. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are viewed upon as unjust, as the it has already been proven through statements from senior leaders that the concerns for WMD’s, or the links through terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda along with other HPT’s (High Payoff Targets) were in facts a fallacy and never justified as accurate or truthful. Brown University estimated the result of death during the post 9/11 war was 7,057 of U.S. lives lost and a staggering 177,000 national military and police from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraqi, and Syria allies have also died (2023). “The most explicit statement of contacts between a Iraq and Al-Qaeda came from vice president, Chaney, who argued that one of the hijackers Mohammed Atta met with senior officials of the Iraqi intelligence service… Atta was actually in the United States the month of April” (Goodman, 2006). To state that the war and its casualties were ethically just would be inaccurate for both Iraq, and Afghanistan. Reference: Brown University (2023). Watson Institute, International & Public Affairs. Cost of War. U.S. & Allied Killed and Wounded. Brown University.
Goodman, M. (2006). The corruption of Intelligence in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. Pg. 2 Fisher, L. (2011, June 28). Libya and war powers Mearsheimer, J. (2018). Why leaders lie: The truth about lying in international politics 3-20 New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 55
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help