Moral Authority To Wage War example essay topic

Christina Blackmon Prenger Paper No. 4 Draft No. 1 Questioning U.S. Moral Authority to Wage War against Iraq Maggie Gallagher has evidently stated her thoughts and influence on the arguments she has faced regarding the United States having the right to morally wage war against another country that has such an apparent rancor for our own country, such as Iraq. There have been many anti-war protests before, during, and even after this war has all but ended, all of them with this "moral fervor" that seems quite ludicrous considering the true facts that support this wage of war. Our own people and many other countries seem to have forgotten all that the United States has done, and still does for many countries around the world; only focusing on the negative aspects of the war, such as the death tolls, as a replacement for the true reason for this intervention: preventing a danger to our own nation. Opinions of the United States are hardened because we have chosen to stand up for ourselves, by ourselves, against and without the United Nations "seal of approval". And what exactly does this "seal of approval" mean coming from the United Nations?

What exactly has the Unites Nations accomplished besides empty promises and a false sense of authority and protection to less than fortunate countries who were in desperate need for their protection? Gallagher's "Questioning U.S. Moral Authority to Wage War against Iraq" was published in USA Today in April of 2003. Those that read USA Today are only looking for a quick comical update, mostly pictorial, on the fame and fortune of the elite and the headlines of the worldly news. In her opening paragraph she seems to be vividly reaching out to the sympathetic war advocates by stating how "morally queasy the idea of leaving the Iraqi people in the murderous hands of Saddam Hussein" would be. To be naming highly religious and political leaders of different cultures would lead one to believe that the audience must be quite worldly and knowledgeable of religion and world history to react entirely to her article. Gallagher uses her cynical humor to catch the attention of her audience even further.

Easily swaying an indecisive audience toward her ideas and way of thinking, while leaving questions lingering in the minds of those who were more adamant on their own war stance, wisely stating "No powerful nation in the history of the world has done what we propose to do for Iraq, what we have already done for Germany and Japan: conquer, liberate, rebuild". This followed by the history of failure that the U.N. has been branded with as the US has stepped in, further supports her argument. There are two main arguments that seem consistent throughout her essay; Gallagher's first argument seems to be why she supports the war on Iraq. A letter writer asks her how she can still support the war after a thousand people have already lost their lives. She replies with her cynical wit, "I guess the two hundred thousand or so Iraqis that Saddam slaughters each year never appeared on al-Jazeera, so they don't count". The Iraqi people even have gone so far as to turn in their own people simply to "help bring this war against this tyrant to a successful end for the Iraqi people".

How could we have forgotten about these deprived people in need of becoming a stronger nation to have the audacity to stand up to a dictator that all have known to be a merciless murderer for so many years! The second and stronger of the two arguments being that if the post -war Iraqi government wanted legitimacy and idealism, why would one think that they would be required to have the United Nations involved in every step of the transformation process considering the U.N.'s past performance. Gallagher continually ridicules the United Nations and its advocates throughout her article by strolling through the U.N.'s scrapbook of headlines reminding her audience of Cambodia's theoretical free and fair elections and the slaughter in Kosovo and the massacre in Srebrenica. Gallagher asks Kofi Annan, "What gives government legitimacy?" I believe that the U.S. has already answered that question with its democratic actions and further support for all.

The bottom line is that when another nation needs protection, nourishment, and diplomacy the U.N. will be called upon, but the U. S will carry out the sanction. In the end, there is still one question that lies at the brim of everyone's thoughts. Do we, the United States of America, have the moral authority to wage war, and if so, what does that mean for the rest of the world? Under the circumstances that the Iraqi government had positioned us in, I do believe that we do have the moral authority. If it were any other country that this had happened to, the United States would have been right in the heart of the situation assisting the victimized country by all means necessary.

We as Americans do have an idealistic view of things and believe that everyone should be as lucky as to have the alike. If because we set high standards and ambitious goals for ourselves and our country it is because we are an egocentric nation that truly only cares about what we have on our own soil, not the tribulations of other nations. We only assist others because that is our nature to do good deeds and maintain peace among all of the nations. There will always be a reason that is beneficial to our own country that will also help others, that does not mean that we want to rule your government. We simply believe that if all nations had the freedoms and choices that we Americans do, then this world may just be a more peaceful place..