As part of its ongoing ‘global war against terror’ the United States, under the leadership of former President Bush declared war against Iraq on 23 March 2003 with the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Lindner: 2009,21).  White (2011, Internet source) reported that in 2010 the death toll of Iraqi civilians was estimated at 109 794 and more 55 000 insurgents have been killed. In 2007, the estimated number of misplaced persons was approximated at 2, 225,000 making it the largest forced misplacement in the Middle East since 1948 (Berta: 2008, 262). The number of Iraqi soldiers and police that have been killed in the war was reported in January 2011, at 9,889 (White: 2011, Internet source). What is more, the impact of the war is vast and it runs deep, in the face of such tragedy, the Iraqi nation is confronted with challenges of unemployment levels of about 60 per cent, an infrastructure in ruins and chronic malnutrition among others.

However despite reports on the number of deaths, injuries and displaced persons that continue to be recorded well over five years after the war has ended, as the country fights to rebuild itself and regain an announce of normalcy the considerations surrounding the US led invasion in Iraq  are not clear-cut as it may appear.  According to Nye (2003:22) there are four overarching limitations on ethical considerations that guide international politics.  Firstly, there are massive cultural and religious differences that divide people when deciding the morality and justice of certain acts.  Islam societies present a dissimilar culture to that of the West. Secondly states do not act as individuals and heads of states are judged on different set of ideals as their expected to serve as trustees of the country’s resources and the population’s safety over which it has been given the power to rule over.  Thirdly limits on the ethics international politics is the complex nature of causation.  At the international level, making accurate predictions of consequences is intricate as there many more key actors and more variables at play.  Lastly, there are arguments that perhaps stem from the realist tradition, that assert that institutions of international society such as the United Nations are particularly weak in their very nature.

While strict pacifists deem any kind of killing as always wrong, for Perry (2004: Internet source), killing can be justified in defence of the innocent against unjust attack.  Therefore although all people have a basic right not to be killed, the right is not absolute and one can forfeit that right if they wilfully threaten or take the lives of others. The United States has received a lot of criticism since 2002, regarding the conditions justifying its decision to wage war against Iraq under the flagship of ‘how does a government’s abuse of its citizens’ human rights have to be before military intervention can be enforced in that country, without its governments consent.  According to international law, if there is no threat to any other state, then the UN Security Council must be formally consulted before any form of action can be taken. 

Although the Iraqi government’s cooperation with UNMOVIC (the UN agency responsible for monitoring Iraq compliance with the resolution) in early 2003, a report was released indicating that Saddam Hussein’s government had not yet it full access to its programs and weapons sites.  On the basis of this report, the United States asserted that the report was reason enough for undertaking military action on Iraq.  China, Russia, France and other non-permanent members of the Security Council expressed strong opposition to the argument the US and all its allies had posed.  While this was met with widespread criticism, several scholars in international politics have posited that indeed nothing short of invasion would have prevented Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and sing WMD to achieve his foreign policy goals or giving them to terrorist groups.  Nonetheless the human cost of the war has been extensive. The latest death reports of American soldiers and Iraqi insurgents that are directly linked to the events of the war and the ongoing occupation of Iraq by Americans troops were reported in January 2011.

This article does not purport to offer means by which specific moral dilemmas should be approached. Rather it highlights the interlinked relationship between the domestic and international moral aspirations of states as well as the irony of globalisation. Although we live in an age where the margins between states are so faint maps best serve as territory markers we as moral creatures remain divided in our selfish ambitions of state interest.   


Bibliography
Lang, A.F., 2007. “The violence of rules? Rethinking the 2003 war against Iraq”. Contemporary Politics. Vol 13 (3)
Maitre, B. R., “What sustains ‘Internal Wars’? The dynamics of conflict in the state of Sudan”.  Thirds Wold Quarterly. Vol (30) 1
Meashmier, J.J. and Walt, S.M., 2003. “An unnecessary war” . No Iraq War.org. Internet source, accessed 2 May, 2011 
Nye, J.S., 2003. Understanding International Conflict.  Pearson,New York
Perry, D.L., 2002. “Can an Invasion of Iraq be justified ethically?”. Santa Barbara News Press. Internet source, accessed 2 May, 2011
http://www.hoeearthlink.net/davidperry/recent.html
White, D., 2011. “Iraq war facts”. About.com. Internet source, accessed 29 April, 2011
http://usliberlas.about.com/od/headsecurit1/a/iraq/nimber.html