Human Rights Watch on Iraq invasion

[Solmyr]

A telling quote from here:

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.

These people call themselves the "Human Rights Watch"?

[Khirmint]

I've read most of the article, interesting read. Well written, and they seem to back up most of their claims with facts.

I'm curious why you disagree with their assessment. Do you think their facts are wrong, their policy or something else altogether?

-Khirmint

[Aristotle]

Some serious flaws in the article:

A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war

It was not "occasionally" offered as a reason. It was always listed as a major reason.

No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered.

Abu Nidal was killed in Iraq.

Mohammed Atta (the lead terrorist in the 9/11 attacks) trained in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein personally paid $50,000 to the families of suicide bombers that blew themselves up in Israel.

No prewar links????? Huh?




Some funny blatantly political statements:

Human Rights Watch has on rare occasion advocated humanitarian intervention—for example, to stop ongoing genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.

Those were PC approved intervention areas so of course they deem them in need of humanitarian intervention.

Instead of using an objective means like the use of chemical weapons, the murder of millions of people for political purposes, the beating and killing of Olympic athletes for not winning medals, etc. this "Human Rights Watch" group instead makes its decision on whether or not the proposed location passes the Politically Correct Test. In other words, is the government being deposed one that is not a currently protected PC group.

In our view, as a threshold matter, 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.

And that wasn't going on in Iraq??? Hello?? Follow the news much?

Does invading other sovereign nations count?

Ok, lets go through their 5 requirements one at a time:

First, military action must be the last reasonable option to halt or prevent slaughter; military force should not be used for humanitarian purposes if effective alternatives are available.

Check.

Economic embargoes had been tried for 12 years. Numerous UN resolutions were attempted but Saddam Hussein violated them all.

The only remaining recourse was military action. Another UN resolution would be just as useless as the prior ones, and Saddam was having no trouble scamming money for himself out of the UN via the corrupt "oil for food" program.

Second, the intervention must be guided primarily by a humanitarian purpose; we do not expect purity of motive, but humanitarianism should be the dominant reason for military action.

Check.

Saddam Hussein was routinely murdering his own people. Saddam did not provide free elections. Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons. Saddam was believed by ALL WORLD GOVERNMENTS to have and be creating chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons.

Third, every effort should be made to ensure that the means used to intervene themselves respect international human rights and humanitarian law;

Check.

Enormous efforts were taken by the US and Coalition Forces to minimize collateral damage. Smart bomb technology and extreme caution combined to result in extremely minimal civlian loss of life.

Massive humanitarian aid was provided immediately and within a few months Iraqis were already living better than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Fourth, it must be reasonably likely that military action will do more good than harm;

Check.

This is a no brainer. Iraqis will have political and economic freedom. They will no longer have a dictator who is bilking the national economy of the majority of its oil produced wealth. The people no longer need fear persecution and murder for simply speaking their political or religious views.

There are demonstrations in the streets where people can freely express their political beliefs. Countless mosques have already been built that Saddam Hussein would never have allowed.

Finally, we prefer endorsement of humanitarian intervention by the U.N. Security Council or other bodies with significant multilateral authority. However, in light of the imperfect nature of international governance today, we would not require multilateral approval in an emergency context.

Check.

The US had unanimous UN Security Council approval of their first resolution. The US foolishly went back for a 2nd resolution (because France had promised Colin Powell it would vote for it, but lied).

Furthermore, this is an absurd requirement because the UN has become nothing but a pencil pushing, bureaucratic nightmate. Regardless of this, the US *did* have Security Council approval.

All 5 of their criterion were met. How can they claim the war in Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention?

[Aristotle]

There were two very refreshing points made in that article, however, that I think more radical nutjobs should heed:

Two Irrelevant Considerations

Before applying these criteria to Iraq, it is worth noting two factors that we do not consider relevant in assessing whether an intervention can be justified as humanitarian.

First, we are aware of, but reject, the argument that humanitarian intervention cannot be justified if other equally or more needy places are ignored. Iraqi repression was severe, but the case might be made that repression elsewhere was worse. For example, an estimated three million or more have lost their lives to violence, disease, and exposure in recent years during the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), yet intervention in the DRC was late and, compared to Iraq, modest. However, if the killing in Iraq warranted military intervention, it would be callous to disregard the plight of these victims simply because other victims were being neglected. In that case, intervention should be encouraged in both places, not rejected in one because it was weak or nonexistent in the other.

Second, we are aware of, but reject, the argument that past U.S. complicity in Iraqi repression should preclude U.S. intervention in Iraq on humanitarian grounds... ...we would not deny relief to, say, the potential victims of genocide simply because the proposed intervener had dirty hands in the past.