Was the War Worth It?

(5 of 5)

KENNETH ROTH When this war started, human rights were only a very minor reason to enter Iraq. Human rights became more of an after-the-fact justification only when it turned out that there were no WMD or prewar links to international terrorism. So, no, I don't think the war should have ever been or can now be justified as a successful humanitarian intervention. The extreme measure of military invasion should be reserved for stopping ongoing or imminent mass slaughter, and that wasn't happening in Iraq in March 2003. Humanitarian intervention might have been justified to stop the Anfal genocide in 1988 against the Kurds, but there was nothing like that going on in 2003. Clearly, Saddam was an awful dictator, but there are many awful dictators in the world, and toppling an awful dictator, in my view, does not justify military intervention.

> Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch

DAVID M. KENNEDY From the outset, the war was a colossally bold and breathtakingly risky gamble. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the U.S. has failed to beat the odds. Forget about WMD and links to al-Qaeda. The real purpose for invading Iraq was the extravagant ambition to transform the political culture of the entire Middle East. The Bush Administration bet American might and good intentions against the accumulated weight of centuries of religious rivalry, tribal tensions, wanton bloodletting and authoritarian rule. Even American hyperpower has proved no match for the burden of all that sorry history.

> Kennedy is a history professor at Stanford University and a 2000 Pulitzer Prize winner •