Carnegie Council

Shopping Cart

People Topics

Text Size: A A

Print this Page Email this Page Bookmark and Share

Reconciling Internal Rights and External Wrongs: The Force of Arms and Ideas in War (Case Study #13)

(1991)

Greg Russell

Reconciling Internal Rights and External Wrongs: The Force of Arms and Ideas in War
Reconciling Internal Rights and External Wrongs: The Force of Arms and Ideas in War
In this case study, the author confronts the question of "American purpose" in light of the Gulf War. Will the United States continue to be the world's policeman (occasionally under the auspices of the United Nations), and how will it determine what is a violation of its interests and what is not?

Also raised by Russell is the issue of what Americans deem worth killing and dying for. The term "new world order" is in fact a product of the Bush administration's ruminations and rationalizations about the war.

In answering the question "why we fight," the reasons given varied: oil, jobs, and the balance of power in a vital geopolitical area were tried first. These reasons were not nearly as well received as the need to stop aggression, stand against appeasement, enforce collective security, and keep humanitarian obligations to the ravaged Kuwaitis. It was these latter claims that lent themselves to the argument that we intervene because it is "moral, just, and right."

To purchase this case study, go to the GUISD Pew Case Study Center.

Read More: Just War, Warfare, Middle East, Iraq, Kuwait


About The Case Studies Series

The Carnegie Council offers this series of 22 case studies for use in college and university classrooms. Each case presents and analyzes an historical example of an ethical dilemma in international affairs.

Features

Policy Innovations Online Magazine

The central address for a fairer globalization.
» More

blue dot separator

Ethics & International Affairs

Go to the Journal for articles on ethics and foreign policy.
» More

postprandial-ft