Using Force: Intent and Outcome

Opponents of the coalition against Iraq point to the casualties incurred by Iraqi civilians as evidence against it. (*) And, of course they are right, in that civilians are killed by the coalition

The coalition answers that it does not intentionally target civilians, and in fact it does everything it can do to avoid doing so. And, of course, they are also right. Few people would doubt that US and British troops are not trying to kill civilians.

There is a deep moral issue here. The opponents of the war are judging the outcome: civilian deaths. The coalition are proclaiming their intent: no civilian deaths. Who is morally right?

In life, both individually, and as groups, we are faced with makind decisions such as these, when the outcome is uncertain. That is, our actions' intentions may be different from our actions' outcomes.

The coalition has taken the position that the benefit of removing Saddam Hussein from power is a worthy goal, whose benefit will outweigh the cost of human life, both in the coalition and in the Iraqi side.

The war's opponents are of two kinds: (i) they oppose the worthiness of the goal, i.e., they do not believe that the coalition should remove Saddam, either because: (i-a) the coalition does not have a moral justification in meddling in another country's affairs, or (i-b) Saddam's actions do not merit removal. And, (ii) they oppose the human cost involved, such as the civilian casualty cost.

The coalition has not had any trouble in convincing the world of (i-b): Saddam is not (or was not) a very popular figure even among his fellow Arabs. Few people would miss him terribly if he disappeared tomorrow.

But, the coalition has not given a convincing justification for (i-a). That is, while the goal (removing Saddam) may be worthy, the means to achieving this goal have not been accepted by many as reasonable. The reason for this, is that instinctively, human beings feel the injustic of pre-emptive justice. When a psychopathic murderer moves next door, it is perfectly reasonable to feel threatened; to wish that he hadn't; to wish that he'd go away. But, most people would not find it reasonable to kill him, or disable him, so as to avoid what he might do in the future.

If we accept the new Bush-Blair doctrine, that pre-emptive action is acceptable in international politics, even though it is not in everyday life, we are still faced with objection (ii).

Choosing whether or not to accept (ii) as a valid objection depends on one's outlook. An ultra-pacifist sees the possibility of even a single civilian death as enough to make war not an option. An ultra-warhawk will say that as many civilian deaths as it takes to meet the objective are acceptable.

Obviously, when the decision to go to war was taken, the war planners must have dealt with objection (ii). It is apparent, that they estimated the level of civilian casualties resulting from their actions to be within "acceptable" limits. Their decision can only be measured against each person's individual sense of what "acceptable" is, and will also be judged by history, which in the long run tends to even out the subjective views of those, like us, who live through times like these.

(*) I will not dwell on the morally dubious distinction between civilian and non-civilian casualties.

Posted by Dienekes at March 29, 2003 12:31 AM | PermaLink