United States' Foreign Intervention-October Beginners' Tournament Round 1

To understand whether an action is moral or immoral, we first must decide what constitutes morality. I will argue my case from a utilitarian perspective; that is, that what produces the greatest utility (happiness, satisfaction) for the most people is moral, and what leads to less happiness is immoral. This framework is the most applicable to the resolution, because the United States, through intervention, is explicitly attempting to curtail human rights abuses, which may largely be considered bad due to the large amount of negative utility produced for the abused. As such, I will argue that foreign intervention on the part of the U.S. government for purpose of curtailing abuses is immoral, as it results in a lower overall happiness. My primary example for demonstrating this will be the war in Iraq, which, while not fought solely for humanitarian reasons, was heavily influenced by them. P1- Intervention leads to chaos A fundamental aspect of intervention in countries with human rights abuses is that military action must be involved to some degree. Consider Iraq, invaded in part due to the abuses at the hands of Saddam Hussein (1). It was a totalitarian state with many, many abuses. Power rested in the hands of a very small group of people not answerable to any others. Intervention to curtail abuse necessarily involves removing dictators and others in power through military action, either through U.S. forces or U.S.-backed forces. The overthrowing of any government leads to a power vacuum, as a new one must be established. Maintaining a stable, US-backed democracy, required years of occupation following the death of Hussein; his capture took less than a year, while the war itself continued until 2011 (2). Even with continued US support, though, chaos continued to reign; this is especially evident by the fact that Iraqi forces are still embroiled in conflict within their own borders (3). This fighting is negative utility for US-trained Iraqi forces due to the danger to their lives. More significantly, the civilian body count over the course of the war has amounted to approximately 150,000 (4). Death is avoided by the overwhelming majority of living beings, and must therefore have a negative utility, as living beings tend to seek out what is pleasurable or fulfilling, and avoid that which is not. While it is true that Saddam did commit atrocious genocides, the Human Rights Watch estimated the killings at the hands of Saddam’s party at about 250,000 in about 25 years (5). The average rate of death (12,500/year) has been higher in the 12 years of the Iraq war and its aftermath than during Saddam’s reign until the war (10,000/year). The cost of establishing human rights was great, and it is unclear how long people will be able to benefit from them, due to the relatively recent encroachment of IS. In other words, the benefits of intervention to the citizens are slim at best, and negative at worst; either morally neutral or morally bad. P2- Intervention has quantifiable negative utility for US citizens Wars cost money, and a lot of it. The United States spent about $2 trillion in Iraq (6). This outflow of money is explicitly negative utility for US citizens, as it carries with it an opportunity cost of other potential uses of that money—in education, in healthcare, in infrastructure, in government employment, or elsewhere. The $2 trillion spent on the war in Iraq ballooned the national debt by about 15% (7). The deficit created in large part due to the war led to several budget cuts going into effect in efforts to balance the budget, like the 2013 sequester cuts, resulting in reductions in rental assistance, studies about the quality of medical care, and more (8). US citizens are still paying a cost for the intervention of their country in Iraq, and are worse off for it. Furthermore, there is the cost that soldiers and contractors had to pay, like Iraqi soldiers, in terms of putting their lives on the line, and sometimes losing them. More than 4,000 U.S. soldiers died during the war (9). A government is responsible first and foremost for the good of its own people, so the fact that US citizens are perhaps the most negatively impacted by foreign intervention demonstrates clear immorality of the government for waging wars for humanitarian purposes. Conclusion: The involvement of the government in humanitarian wars produces far more negative than positive utility, and is therefore immoral. Humanitarian wars produce more suffering and hardship for citizens of the invaded country for extended periods of time, and impose severe costs on the citizens of the invading country for a similarly long period. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. https://www.iraqbodycount.org...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://www.usdebtclock.org...8. http://www.gao.gov...9. http://tinyurl.com...