Monday, March 21, 2011

Ethics: Should We Be Involved In Libya?

We’re there, but people from both sides of the aisle are asking whether we should be and what, exactly, the end objective we’re hoping for is. When should the US use force abroad? How much does it matter that we’re acting under the authorization of the United Nations? Is this a humanitarian project? Political? Strategic?

Post-show thoughts: I have serious concerns about the action, but I think I understand the rationale behind it. The main criteria of a just war are satisfied by my reckoning, and the real concerns are practical and political rather than ethical in particular. I'm willing to trust the President for now, but I want to know more and I want to know it before this stretches into weeks or months.

Jus ad Bellum (Justice of the War)
Just cause for going to war
Right intentions in going to war
Public declaration of war by a constituted authority
Good achieved outweigh evil incurred
All means of resolution been exhausted prior to war

Jus in Bello (Justice of the Warfare)
Discrimination between combatants and non-combatants
Means proportional to ends
Means relevant to ends
Minimum force principle
Always be aimed at achieving peace

Resources:
History of the Libyan protests and revolt (NYT)
Libya updates (Telegraph)
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya (Politico)
Republicans want clarity on mission (Politico)
Obama enters war with no debate or objective (Wash Examiner)
Obama persuaded by Clinton (NYT)
Photos from the conflict (NYT)
Arab League critical of strikes (Wash Post)
Libya: Benghazi about to fall (Telegraph)
After bombing Libya, what now? (Huff Post)
Lawmakers question Obama on goals in Libya (Business Week)

No comments: