Was Invading Iraq a Rational Decision?

One of the most significant turning points of the 21st century was September 11, 2001. On this tragic day, thousands of lives were lost, the United States’ feeling of security took a significant dip, and terrorism made people confused. We had never seen evil like this, and quite frankly, we did not know how to respond. As a leader of a nation that prides itself on democracy, courage, and resilience, President Bush decided that war was the solution. He did not want to, in a sense, let evil “win”. He wanted the U.S. to hold a strong identity as a resilient nation that never backs down. While it was unlikely that Iraq did have nuclear weapons, the United States still wasn’t sure, and as a result they went through with it. The U.S.’s decision to intervene was not rational because it acted out of emotion and values rather than fully considering the situation. Acting based on low possibility rather than probability is not a well-thought out solution, and it is a solution that can have very negative effects. The U.S.’s decision had these negative effects.

Why would there not be an opposition to going to war? Why did everyone support it? Ah, there’s the catch: Not everyone supported it, but no one was willing to show their opposition because they didn’t want to seem like they supported terrorism. They obviously didn’t support terrorism, but because 9/11 was such a terrifying rarity, everyone was fearful of being viewed in the wrong way. Because of the level of tragedy, the support for the nation was at an all-time high. Every action that acted on the basis of morality was deemed justified. Peter Singer, an ethicist, said that Bush is “America’s most prominent moralist. No other president in living memory has spoken so often about good and evil, right and wrong” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). After such a horrific event, everyone needed a moral figure to speak to them. Bush gave the public what they needed, and as a result the public, at least externally, supported his notions.

Bush was the leader of a nation that prides itself on its patriotism and democracy. We care deeply about our values but sometimes take that a step too far. Before we do something that has potentially significant impacts, we should really think critically about it. The mystery of whether Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or not was frustrating for the U.S.; because we didn’t know for sure, we went off of the “possibility” vs. “probability” comparison. For us to go to war because of a “possibility” reflects a lack of judgment, thinking, and rationality on our part. Relating to constructivism, the United States responded to a gesture made by Iraq, but it was a gesture that was foggy and unclear. As a result, we did not have legitimate reason to go to war. If we knew what Iraq’s intent was, and if Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons, then we would have justification for war. However, Iraq did not pose a clear threat and as a result the U.S.’s decision to intervene cannot be considered rational. The Bush administration had a passionate, strong, encouraging reaction to the attacks, but they took their patriotism, passion, and pride a bit too far.

While the United States considered the negatives the war presented, they didn’t consider them fully. Even if they deemed the negatives to be great, they wouldn’t care because “a price could hardly be placed on defending the democracy for which thousands had died on September 11, 2001. Thus was the American public primed for the costs that an aggressive campaign of democracy promotion might entail” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). Think about it, though: after such a degrading attack on the U.S., any citizen would feel patriotism and pride for their country. Any cost was viewed to be worth it. Now, this does not mean that the U.S.’s decision to go to war was rational; it means that the public’s reaction made sense. An initial reaction should not be the reason for a long-term mission. Before going to war, leaders have to put things in perspective while not letting their emotions and values get the best of them.