Position:the 2003 Iraq war is justifiable based on humanitarian concerns
From dKosopedia
The Urban Legend
Tale: The underlying message of neocons when discussing Saddan's evil deeds is that Bush's Iraq war is justified due to humanitarian reasons
Status: False - Evil deeds happened but DO NOT justify the destruction caused by Bush's war
One line rebuttal: You can't be humanitarian while violating Geneva conventions
Snopes: N/A
Investigation: The tale builds on the 1988 "Anfal" Massacre of Kurds and the Shia massacre on 1991 shortly after the first Gulf War. This is the period that all but 50,000 of Saddam's alleged 400,000 victims were killed. Therefore Bush's war killed more than Saddam did in the last 10 years... Not surprisingly, Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian organizations do not agree that the 2003 war was fought due to humanitarian reasons
Human Rights Watch:War in Iraq - Not a Humanitarian Intervention
The the Human Rights Watch report of 2004 was titled War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. In it HRW proposes the following reasons to declare Iraq didn't match the Humanitarian criteria:
There was not an ongoing genocide in Iraq
Says HRW humanitarian intervention that occurs without the consent of the relevant government can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life
As we see in Saddam was killing his subjects this was absolutely NOT the case. All but 50,000 deaths attributed to Saddam occured before 1993 and he had been significantly more restrained in the last couple of years, making the bulk of those 50,000 deaths likely to have occurred in the early 90's. Bush's war, in turn, has killed at least 20,000 people since it started in 2003. It is little wonder that HRW and other humanitarian organizations do not agree with the neocon's claim of "humanitarian war".
This dubious claim is also laid bare by the fact that the Bush Administration has done little to help stop a real, ongoing, genocide in Darfur
Dire circumstances in Iraq in 2002 were not exceptional
because of the substantial risks inherent in the use of military force, humanitarian intervention should be exceptional—reserved for the most dire circumstances says HRW. As an example it cites Darfur
War was not the last option to be tried
In Saddam's case there were clearly other options such as allowing Hans Blix to finish his investigation
Humanitarian aid was not the main reason for war
Although stapled on top of the myriad of reasons for war the humanitarian aid was not the main reason given and didn't come to the forefront until all other reasons proved null and void. This is not just academic, as it affected the way the war was planned and executed:
- Carpet bombing was allowed and even encouraged
- Looting and civil unrest were not curbed
- the post war troop contingent was not sized appropriately for a humanitarian, peace keeping operation
- Non humanitarian interrogation practices were allowed and even encouraged
Occupation NOT humanitarian
In an humanitarian intervention every effort should be made to ensure that the means used to intervene themselves respect international human rights and humanitarian law
Geneva convention was not respected
the breaking of Geneva conventions allowed by the Bush Administration to be taken place at Iraq's prison camps invalidated the "humanitarian" premise for this war. (See American Torture Scandal). What make matthers worse was that the Bush Administration was fully aware of the breach and had ordered studies to the effect that some interrogations did not need to abide by Geneva's convention
Bombing for minimum casualties did not occur
In their Off Target : The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq (pdf) report HRW explores how hundreds of civilian deaths in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could have been prevented by abandoning two misguided military tactics. The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition´s conduct of major military operations in March and April of 2003
Looting and civil unrest were not curbed
Thousands died, private property was destroyed or robbed, women were raped, hospitals were looted under the watch of coalition troops who couldn't intervene since they had no orders to that effect
The post war troop contingent was not sized appropriately
By relying on technology, i.e., weapons, the war planners clearly indicated that civilian lives were less important than budget constraints. The decision to disband the Iraq army and to let looting run unimpeded are also evidence of this deliberate prioritization of cost over civilian lives. Mo war can be called humanitarian when conducted in such a way
More harm than good
It must be reasonably likely that military action will do more good than harm; humanitarian intervention should not be tried if it seems likely to produce a wider conflagration or significantly more suffering
Not endorsed by the International Community
Says HRW: ',we prefer endorsement of humanitarian intervention by the U.N. Security Council or other bodies with significant multilateral authority
