The Morality of an unjust Occupation

By Daniel Joseph "Danny" Smiechowski

A social-psychological perspective on The U.S. Occupation of Iraq

Daniel is a former public school teacher in San Diego, California where he currently resides. He is considered an overall bon vivant having written on topics as diverse as politics, bicycle racing, French Culture, philosophy and social issues. He has completed over one hundred triathlons worldwide and has visited France eighteen times at last count. He attended the University of France, "Sorbonne" and graduated from San Diego State University. He has run for public office seven times.....

Daniel J. Smiechowski June 28, 2005 The U.S. occupation of Iraq has called in question a wide range of moral sources in legitimizing actions of the Bush Administration. There exists a broad consensus of public opinion outside the United States, depicting the Iraq quagmire as morally illegitimate.

Forces inside the United States, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are equally critical of the Bush doctrine's policy of preemptive strike. Importantly, however, in evaluating the moral import of the Iraq war, both secular and non-secular sources are considered as wholly plausible. Public opinion in many foreign capitals runs counter to U.S. public opinion polls. According to Madame Faury, Adjoint du Maire au Havre in Le Havre, France, an overwhelming number of French citizens remain highly critical of the U.S.-led war effort. The same can be said of the entire European Union in criticizing the validity of invading Iraq.

While outside our borders much of the world condemns the actions of Washington, the comfort and warmth of nationalism pacifies America's heartland. This pacification, according to Freud, is to be expected. Nationalism like one's mother is nurturing. A baby is weak and dependent upon delivery as a nation's moral strength is weak and diminished upon threat. Without question, our culture's falsification of personal control and the concomitant myth of control drain our personal morality like sap from a tree. This philosophy of control was extraordinarily depicted in the French film "King of Hearts," where the perceived insane were victimized by the vagaries of war.

The concept of moral consequentialism cannot be overstated. This concept remains basic to the moral view of the Catholic Church with consideration to U.S. policy toward Iraq. The carpet bombings of Germany by U.S. fliers toward the end of World War Two has, in large measure, been reconciled by Catholic theologians. But, America's role in Iraq has not met this conceptual moral threshold, according to some Catholic clergy. Arguably, the Vatican remains mostly consistent with regard to life and death issues. It is most perplexing, then, to witness such moral uncertainty and inconsistency within the Catholic faithful, especially with regard to the war in Iraq. Again, deaf, dumb and blind nationalism trumps Catholic doctrine.

Catholicism's chief antagonist, Judaism, has within the moral framework altering rules with concern over the Iraq situation. Obviously, the stakes are higher and closer to home for most Jews. Witness the U.S. 2004 presidential election, where an unprecedented Jewish vote went for George W. Bush.

Within the confines of international law there must exist some conceptual moral framework in foreign policy decision making, something akin to the Kholberg stratification of moral development theory ought to predicate the morality of nations. For example, what exactly was the threat by Iraq to America's vital interests? Was the American response morally justified? Why was this military response found acceptable by a majority in Congress? Were these questions analyzed by American citizens? If not, why not?

According to America's preeminent philosopher John Dewey, every situation ought to be judged on the uniqueness of the situation itself. There are no moral absolutes as with religious dogma. Dr. Dewey was a pragmatist, a democratic humanist who ironically saw a need for religious faith as a control for the masses. With the war in Iraq, however, these opposing and seemingly contradictory statements seem to clash. What solves this moral paradox is the "intention result model" so common in philosophy. What was the intention of President Bush in ordering the invasion of Iraq? Now, what is the result of that intention?

Man is often corrupted by social forces, according to Philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr. An infant sees light without absolutes in regard to moral reasoning. But after years of existence, the light turns dark as a shroud of social and cultural opinion arrest moral growth. Politicians by nature seek compromise whereas morality is uncompromising. Therefore, politicians are immoral. With regard to Iraq, perhaps the lowest level of moral stratification is reserved for those who seek only to democratize a sovereign state or prostitute its economy. Is this the morality of Christ?

In conclusion, there have been horrific moral falsehoods perpetrated upon the American people by an administration many rank lower than that of President Warren Harding. But, just like sex, Christ sells in our great land. Christ is absolute and his teachings have been used as weaponry against perception. We have bankrupted our nation in a moral sense since liquid seeks its own level. As French President Jacques Chirac has said, "Iraq is the biggest mistake in the two hundred plus year history of the United States." And to that I say, oui, Monsieur Le President.