PHILOSOPHIZING WAR: ARGUMENTS in the WAR on IRAQ a Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board in Partial
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PHILOSOPHIZING WAR: ARGUMENTS IN THE WAR ON IRAQ A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Bassam Romaya May, 2010 Dissertation Examining Committee : Joseph Margolis, Philosophy Philip Alperson, Philosophy Paul C. Taylor, Philosophy Joseph Schwartz, Political Science i © Copyright 2010 by Bassam Romaya All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Title: Philosophizing War: Arguments in the War on Iraq Candidate’s Name: Bassam Romaya Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Temple University, 2010 Doctoral Advisory Committee Chair: Dr. Joseph Margolis I set out to analyze four main philosophical arguments which have dominated the Iraq war debate. Each of these arguments has been used by philosophers to varying degrees to assess the circumstances surrounding the war. The discussions customarily focused on four key issues: just war theory, humanitarian intervention, democratization, and preventive war. In each case, I examine the argument’s methods, shortcomings, and implications, to conclude that each fails to satisfactorily address, explain, or elucidate the highly controversial war. I argue that we simply cannot rely on a meager set of arguments to provide us with greater insight or genuine understanding of this war, as well as new or postmodern wars more generally. First, arguments that focus on the just war tradition overlook key events and underemphasize developments that have effectively eroded the tradition’s defining concepts, such as the distinctions between combatant/noncombatant, states/non-states, victories/defeats, armies/non-state or non-nation actors. Second, theoretical analyses are routinely misappropriated or misapplied; this is especially evident in calls for humanitarian intervention, implemented for past harms committed, using backward-causing logic intended to make up for past inaction, rather than halting ongoing or imminent harm. Third, the focus on forcible democratization overlooks the high probability for failure in such pursuits and readily dismisses moral, legal, economic, educational, and cultural obstacles to democratic national building. Fourth, arguments which focus on preventive war suffer from similar problems encountered with the iii previous three, especially since it is unclear that the event could be characterized as a case of preventive war. The relationship between belligerent state and target state was not one in which the target state posed a future or distant threat to the belligerent state. Collectively, the arguments err in their uncritical acceptance of methodological analyses that have no genuine application to the matter at issue; that is, each misunderstands the nature of new or postmodern wars and clings to concepts relevant to modern wars, which do not factor in developments such as non-state actors, the spread of global capitalism, economic and cultural globalization, strategic objectives or military preeminence, imperialist aims or empire-building. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is customary to acknowledge persons who greatly influenced and contributed to one’s intellectual development, and enriched the overall quality of work completed during one’s graduate career. To begin, I would like to thank Dr. Joseph Margolis for agreeing to serve as chair of my dissertation advisory committee and for offering much- needed guidance throughout various stages of the dissertation process. I deeply appreciate the unrelenting support, patience, enthusiasm and advice he always offered. I greatly benefited from having the opportunity to work with him over the years. I leave Temple having acquired many valuable personal and professional lessons due to Dr. Margolis’ extensive and unparalleled mentorship. I would also like to thank Dr. Philip Alperson for agreeing to serve on the dissertation committee and for offering much input on earlier drafts of the dissertation. I am also grateful for his advice throughout the job market placement process. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Paul C. Taylor for agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee. Dr. Taylor suggested many helpful texts and sources to assist me in developing my ideas and in tightening up the overall arguments of the dissertation. It has been a privilege to have both Dr. Alperson and Dr. Taylor serve on my committee. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Joseph Schwartz for agreeing to serve as the outside examiner. There are probably others I have neglected to acknowledge, though you are remembered and appreciated indeed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 2. THE QUESTION OF JUST WAR THEORY .......................................................29 3. THE QUESTION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION..............................70 4. THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY ................................................................102 5. THE QUESTION OF PREVENTIVE WAR .......................................................137 6. PHILOSOPHIZING WAR .................................................................................164 7. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................193 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................217 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: ARGUMENTS IN THE WAR ON IRAQ Philosophers have offered a variety of ways to think about the problem of war. The general task of philosophizing war, or philosophizing about war, is commonly done within a range of specific theoretical structures or approaches that standardize the possibilities in assessing the problem of war along moral foundations, ones which often rely on broader foundations in international ethics and the nature of global justice. Arguing about war is frequently done within a moral continuum of notable positions about war, but it may also be done by focusing on specialized topics that underlie various positions. The arguments about war examined in this work address topical areas surrounding the Iraq war throughout the years since its inauguration; it is a specific body of literature focusing on recurrent themes that have played a large part in philosophical discussions about the war on Iraq, predominantly in the United States. As a whole, the work sets out to analyze four arguments that busied philosophers concerned with a variety of questions about the Iraq war, and to some extent questions about contemporary wars more generally. The Iraq war is quite arguably the most controversial international conflict of our times. Arguments about the moral, legal, political, philosophical, and international dimensions make up this lively and often overwhelming debate. The ongoing empirical nature of events quickly outpaced much theorizing that has been done and continues to be put forth, presenting us with newer obstacles in assessing the matter. Arguments about the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have permeated the social fabric of everything from popular culture to academia, and revived a theoretical study of war in general across a variety of disciplines, well outside of military ethics, peace studies, political science, or philosophy. 1 The war was formally inaugurated by the United States on March 19 th , 2003. Three weeks into the invasion, the conflict transformed into a military occupation, shortly after the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba’ath Party. Now in its seventh year, the long-term occupation continues and is likely to last into the coming decade. The Status of Forces Agreement between the Iraqi government and the United States which was approved in December of 2008 stipulates that combat forces must withdraw by June 30, 2009 and all remaining US forces to be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The withdrawal date is subject to security improvements or so-called conditions on the ground at that time, necessitating further negotiations which are likely to delay the withdrawal process. On January 5 th , 2009, the largest and most expensive US embassy held its opening red carpet ceremony in central Baghdad, a mammoth fortress overlooking the Tigris River; complete with swimming pools, tennis courts, hotel suites, and residential compounds housing thousands of embassy staff. With its own electrical grids and underground facilities, the $700 million structure is the most ambitious embassy project the US has undertaken to date. It is safe to assume that US personnel are here to stay. I expect that the Iraq war will continue to be at the center of war debates in the coming years, perhaps decades, much as the Vietnam War is still a provocative topic today. War is a sexy topic, if you will. American romanticisation and addiction to war permeates every segment of its social and intellectual fabric. One does not have to look far and wide for evidence of this; the American English dialect itself commonly makes use of war-related expressions: Americans “nuke” food, “kill” time, “bomb” exams and build “guns” (viz., muscles). The institution of learning is no exception. Our university offers intensive writing programs entitled: “Dissertation Book Camp.” Our students 2 regularly dress themselves