Ethics in Iraq
On September 11, 2001 tragedy struck as hijackers took two commercial airliners hostage and subsequently flew them into the World Trade Center in New York City. The culprits were members of the terrorist group “Al-Qaeda”; a group focused in Afghanistan that was known for its violent hostility towards the United States. Feeling as though they posed an even greater threat to the safety of American Citizens, President George W. Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. As time went on, with insignificant findings in Afghanistan, the Bush administration made a jump to declare war on Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. The rationale behind this declaration was the nation’s “relation” to Al-Qaeda and their supposed weapons of mass destruction. Over the course of six years, American troops continue to sacrifice their lives and not one weapon of mass destruction has been unearthed. Few ties to Al-Qaeda have been discovered. In light of these facts, it is easy to understand why the common man considers the War in Iraq a disastrous blunder. It forces others, however, to think deeper and find a more significant meaning to the War. Upon careful analysis one can empirically find the underlying ethical motivations and implications addressed by philosophers of the past.
Although this is a recent event with repercussions in the present, there are still ethical concepts which transcend the boundaries of time and are directly applicable to this war. Aristotle believed that the act of the state is not the state itself, but its government. It is the citizens that comprise the state. They select people to head it, whether it is a council of elders, or a larger democratic government. Citizens are people of the state, not resident ...