Eric Posner: Was the Iraq War A Humanitarian Success?
Evidence that it will save lives over ten years.
Now, this will be embarrassing to those who pegged their opposition to the war to the proposition that it could never succeed in humanitarian terms. I've always contended, however, that it might very well make Iraq better off in the long run--though it's less likely to make the world as a whole better off.
Incidentally my main objections to the war were that it was based on lies and other deceptions, that the outcome was too uncertain, that the cost was likely to be too high, that the consequences for the Middle East at large were likely to be negative, that the opportunity costs were too high, and, in particular, that the time was wrong because we had neither finished the war in Afghanistan nor found bin Laden.
Had the case for war been honest, had there not been lower-hanging humanitarian fruit to be had (e.g. in Sudan), had we not been in a particularly bad strategic position (after 9/11, in the midst of Afghanistan), had the negative effects on the Middle East at large not been so great, and had we not had an unfulfilled moral obligation to get bin Laden, I'd have been far more sympathetic to an invasion of Iraq. But that's an absurdly high number of 'if's.
Posner points in roughly some of the same directions, writing:
Evidence that it will save lives over ten years.
Now, this will be embarrassing to those who pegged their opposition to the war to the proposition that it could never succeed in humanitarian terms. I've always contended, however, that it might very well make Iraq better off in the long run--though it's less likely to make the world as a whole better off.
Incidentally my main objections to the war were that it was based on lies and other deceptions, that the outcome was too uncertain, that the cost was likely to be too high, that the consequences for the Middle East at large were likely to be negative, that the opportunity costs were too high, and, in particular, that the time was wrong because we had neither finished the war in Afghanistan nor found bin Laden.
Had the case for war been honest, had there not been lower-hanging humanitarian fruit to be had (e.g. in Sudan), had we not been in a particularly bad strategic position (after 9/11, in the midst of Afghanistan), had the negative effects on the Middle East at large not been so great, and had we not had an unfulfilled moral obligation to get bin Laden, I'd have been far more sympathetic to an invasion of Iraq. But that's an absurdly high number of 'if's.
Posner points in roughly some of the same directions, writing:
As to whether it was in the American interest to confer these benefits on the Iraqis at vast expense, and virtually no gain, in security or otherwise, to itself – well, that is an entirely different question. I should repeat that it is too soon to tell whether the war gains will be preserved but there are grounds for optimism.IMHO, too many critics of the war opposed it on the grounds that humanitarian success was impossible. Some of these critics have even slipped into generalized condemnations of the use of force for humanitarian reasons. But this is, of course, ridiculous. Humanitarian success was always a possibility in Iraq, and, narrowly construed, always fairly likely possibility--though, since the war was not undertaken for humanitarian reasons, it should not be allowed to give humanitarian intervention a bad name.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:12 PM
9 Comments:
According to what moral calculus to the present and possibly future humanitarian benefits outweigh the deaths, injuries, massive flight from the country, and the unleashing of sectarian death squads? To me, it is not even close. We have perpetrated a moral disaster on the country of Iraq.
However, we agree that the war was waged based on deception. That being the case, there must have been a true intention that was hidden from us. What was it?
What if this intention was to secure the benefits of Iraq's oil reserves for ourselves. Somehow, I just can't see the invasion taking place if the Iraq didn't have the second largest oil reserves in the world. When this likely true objective is added into the moral calculation, I just don't see how it comes out even close to positive for us. Enlighten me, and make my heart lighter, if you can.
Posner can only come up with a net saving of lives by postulating a 55 point improvement in the child mortality rate. This is contradicted by every survey that exists (MICS3, ILCS, IFHS, Lancet 1&2). I estimate that the cost so far has been roughly one million excess deaths.
Whatever. your estimate is BS. maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq but he killed his own people. Just like Darfur and that girl in Somolia. At least we havent been attacked and now we are winning in Iraq no thanks to people like you. Who cares what you think. your still trying to lose the war but we won't so shut up. what BS.
Hey second Anonymous, have you considered choosing a user name for yourself? It's getting confusing having several people called 'Anonymous' with diametrically opposed views.
Also, if you hope for civility, calling someone else's views 'BS' and telling them to 'shut up' isn't a very good way to get it.
---Myca
Hey, second Anonymous--instead of choosing a name, how about going away? Or, ya know, making sense?
Either one would be good.
Myca,
It shouldn't be that confusing. Just look for the person who can't spell, follow basic rules of grammar, or construct a coherent argument.
-TK
In a related (albeit somewhat off-topic) vein ...
Spencer Ackerman posts on Iraq,
Those of us in the antiwar camp have argued for years that the surest way toward a moderate political future for Iraq -- not that there's any sure way! -- is to bring the troops home. Ho-ho, you might roll your eyes, you would say that, wouldn't you, opponent-of-the-occupation, you. And, you know, fair enough. But many of us came to this position not because of a knee-jerk pacifism, but because that's what the constellation of considerations in Iraq and the U.S. national interest suggested.
One such person whom no one could credibly describe as a knee-jerk pacifist is retired Army Col. Pete Mansoor. Mansoor is a counterinsurgent luminary, Petraeus' executive officer in Iraq and contributor to the Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual.
Ackerman then quotes Col. Mansoor's assessment of the prospects for Moqtada Sadr if the US troops are withdrawn:
Muqtada al-Sadr realized he cannot continue to lose political and popular support and survive, so he decided to convert his militia into a social and humanitarian organization (with political overtones, for sure). Now that U.S. forces appear to be on a timeline to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011, this takes away the major plank in the platform of the Sadrist politicians.
In other words, there is a case to be made that our presence in Iraq is hurting the nation more than it is helping, regardless of the morality of the initial invation, and regardless of the morality of any counterfactual invasion we might consider.
Jim Bales
It seems to me that there is a critical missing factor in the discussion (so far) of when an humanitatarian invasion might be morally justified:
There are inherent uncertainties in the outcome of any war one chooses to start, regardless of the reasons for starting it.
This includes
* Uncertainty as to how many people will be killed, maimed, tortured, left sobbing as they hold the mutilated corpses of their brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers/wives/husbands/children, or driven from their homes.
* Uncertainty as to which people will suffer the above
* Uncertainty as to which nations beyond the invaded and the invader will suffer the above
* Uncertainty as to the ultimate humanitarian benefit to those invaded.
It is these uncertainties that leave me skeptical of the postion that starting a war for humanitarian reasons is morally justified. Certainly, any effort to justify starting a war on humanitarian grounds has to acknowledge and address these uncertainties.
Totally with you on that, Jim. Starting a war on humanitarian grounds is a little like trying to solve a hostage situation in a dimly-lit room with only a shotgun. No doubt sometimes action makes sense--but things have to get pretty bad before the cost of inaction outweighs the likely costs.
For a miniscule fraction of the cost of going into Iraq, we could almost certainly have ended the genocide in Darfur--and that's a situation in which things genuinely *have* gotten so bad that even an uncertain outcome is better than the status quo.
But, of course, humanitarian concerns weren't driving our policy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home