I think Omar of Iraq the Model has exactly the right take on the issue of the “legality” of the Iraq War:
The debate about Lord Butler’s report has taken a large space in both, the western and Arabic media. As most of you probably know, Iraqis care more about the results of operation Iraqi freedom rather the causes and whether these were legitimate or not.
Because Iraqis have a lot to deal with regarding their daily life needs and the fact that we’re not a major player in international politics, it becomes understandable that they pay less attention than the rest of the world to the legal complexities of the war and most of them see this war legitimate simply because it lead to their solvation and freedom.
You cannot tell a man that saving him and his family from torture, humiliation and death was a mistake and it should’ve not been done because it’s illegal. This is almost an insult to Iraqis to hear someone saying that this war was illegal. It means that our suffering for decades meant nothing and that formalities and the stupid rules of the UN (that rarely function) are more important than the lives of 25 million people.
Considering that Omar is an Iraqi who lived under Hussein, I take his word far more strongly than a group of wild-eyed leftists. Omar also provides translations of messages on the BBC’s Arabic forums, most of which come from Iraqis who supported the removal of Saddam.
It’s emblematic of why the anti-war movement cannot claim the moral high ground. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal butcher. There can be no doubt that thousands more Iraqis would be dead right now had we done nothing. How can one argue that the nebulous values of “international law” (laws which the UN clearly did not respect in regards to their own Oil-for-Food scam) outweigh the lives of thousands of people?
Of course, the answer is clear – “international law” only applies to the United States as a way of constraining American power. Saddam’s violation of human rights and international law are immaterial to that case, and are therefore glossed over or ignored outright. Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism (and the two are often combined), an ideology of hate that exists independent of the facts.
You forgot, Jay. International “Law” also applies to Israel. Can’t have the “Jooos” trying to protect themselves, it’s a violation of International “Law.”
It’s funny how the loony left always believes they are superior in judgement and thus more qualified to judge matters than even those most affected.
Hey, if you want to judge the liberation of Iraq, forget about the Iraqis who are glad to be free of Saddam, forget about the soldiers who love and respect Bush and want to tell us of all the good they do, just trust a liberal with political power motives.
Interesting post, Jay, but for brevity’s sake couldn’t you just have said “the ends justifies the means”? That would have been a little shorter but would have meant exactly the same thing.
In this particular case, yes, absolutely. The costs of inaction would have been far, far, higher than the costs of action – which is why the anti-war arguments must reconcile the fact that they would lead to far more casualties among innocent Iraqis than the alternative.