Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

George Bush's Iraq adventure is rich in dangerous precedents

By Owen Harries - posted Wednesday, 2 March 2005


Prudence requires resisting the impulse to claim the right to double standards - one for other people, a different and more permissive one for oneself - on the grounds that one represents higher values or has special responsibilities. There is something intrinsically nutty about using one's claimed moral superiority to justify the adoption of lower ethical standards.

A prudential ethic requires that, in making policy, discrimination takes precedence over consistency. This is because a country may pursue a number of goals that have moral worth, among them justice, peace, freedom, security, prosperity and stability. Sometimes these compete or conflict, and which should be given preference will vary. In other words, judgement is involved, not merely the automatic application of general principles.

It is in terms of such a morality of prudence that I believe that the Bush Administration has seriously failed in Iraq. Its policy has been rich in unintended consequences, such as a global wave of intense anti-Americanism, the strong opposition of some of America's most important allies, the indefinite tying down of one-third of a million military personnel, disgusting images of torture, the killing of large numbers of civilians, and the establishment of dangerous precedents that may be exploited by others.

Advertisement

Those who criticise American policy are often criticised for being insensitive to the importance of freedom as a foreign policy goal. It might therefore be appropriate to end with a contribution from John Stuart Mill, a pre-eminent liberal philosopher and the author of a classic treatise, On Liberty:

We have heard something lately about being willing to go to war for an idea. To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justified to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in other respects.

These words were published in 1859 in an essay on the subject of non-intervention. At a time when we have been hearing much about "exporting democracy", they are worth a moment's consideration. 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Leah Wedmore.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This article was first published in The Age  on February 21, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

17 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Owen Harries is a Visiting Fellow of the Lowy Institute and was Editor-in-Chief of the Washington-based, foreign policy journal, The National Interest from 1985-2001.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Owen Harries
Article Tools
Comment 17 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy