Skip to main content

‘Right Intent’: The Moral Dimension of Exit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2015

Part of the book series: NL ARMS ((NLARMS))

  • 609 Accesses

Abstract

The moral dimension of exit is closely related to the moral dimension of entry. Notably, when the entry is highly questioned from a moral perspective, by many different actors, there are bound to be moral problems with regard to exit as well. This point will be illustrated by a discussion of the situation in Iraq from the contested entry in 2003 until the present. A firm basis in Just War principles, with a special focus on ‘right intent’ will prove helpful with regard to both entry and exit strategies and with regard to the present-day pendant of Just War, ‘The responsibility to protect’. ‘Right intent’ is seen in the classical Just War tradition as the appropriate inward disposition. It implies no separation in ‘ad bellum’, ‘in bello’ and ‘post bellum’ and is in all these phases aimed at the realisation of ‘peace as the tranquillity of an order ruled by the doing of justice’. This ‘appropriate inward disposition’ seems indispensable in the present-day discussions on entry and exit strategies. In similar ways as the ius ad bellum, in bello and post bellum aspects need to be viewed from the perspective of ‘right intent’, the entry and exit aspects of an intervention need the same ‘appropriate inward disposition’ perspective, which implies acknowledging the responsibilities and obligations and thus the moral dimension that connects entry and exit. In that sense the envisaged exit might lead to a different entry and as such breaks open an opposition that proves hard to maintain from a moral perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AIV (2010) ‘Nederland en de ‘Responsibility to Protect’. De verantwoordelijkheid om mensen te beschermen tegen massale wreedheden’, rapport van de AIV (Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken), June 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Annan KA (2000) We the Peoples. The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century. Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt TA (2013) Reasonable Chance of Success. Analyzing the postwar requirements of jus ad bellum. In Allhoff F (et al) (eds) (2013) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century. Routledge, New York and London, pp 120-132

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Croonenberg E (2003) Te beschaafd voor oorlog, HP/de Tijd, 4 April 2003, p 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein DM (2009), Exit Lessons. The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2009, 33(4):34-39

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner SS and Blanken L (2012) Beyond Victory and Defeat. In: Rottstein H and Arquilla J (eds) Afghan Endgames – Strategy and Policy Choices for American’s Longest War. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp 127-149

    Google Scholar 

  • ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect Report. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Published by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JT (2013) Contemporary Just War Thinking: Which is Worse, to Have Friends, or Critics? Ethics and International Affairs, Spring 2013, 27(1):25-46

    Google Scholar 

  • May L (2012) After War Ends: A Philosophical Perspective. Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Neurink J (2015) De Oorlog van ISIS. Conserve, Schoorl

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer JJ (2005) Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism versus Neo-Conservatism. Published on Open Democracy News Analysis (http://www.opendemocracy.net)

  • O’Leary B (2009), Departing responsibly. In: Welzer M and Mills N (eds) (2009) Getting out. Historical Perspectives on Leaving Iraq. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia, pp 121-135

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara RM (2013) Jus Post Bellum. War closure in the 21st century. In: Allhoff F (et al.) (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century, Routledge, New York and London, pp 105-120

    Google Scholar 

  • Orme JD (2004) The Paradox of Peace-Leaders, Decisions, and Confl ict Resolution. Palgrave MacMillan, New York,

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer G (2009) It isn’t over. In: Welzer M and Mills N (eds) Getting out. Historical Perspectives on Leaving Iraq. University of Philadelphia Press, pp 136-145

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris R and Sisk T (2009) (eds.) The Dilemmas of State Building. Routledge, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (2013), The Place of Just Post Bellum in Just War Considerations. In: Allhoff F (et al) (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century. Routledge, New York and London, pp 93-105

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter G (2005) The third option in Iraq: a responsible exit strategy, Middle East Policy, vol. XII, no. 3, Fall 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport Commissie van Onderzoek Besluitvorming Irak (2010). Boom, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose G (1998) The exit strategy delusion, Foreign Affairs 77(1): 56-67

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma SK (2008), Reconsidering the ius ad bellum/ius in bello distinction. In: Stahn C and Kleffner JK (eds) Jus Post Bellum. Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 9-30

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2005) Sixtieth Session, 2005 World Summit Outcome

    Google Scholar 

  • Verweij D (2014) Hoe juist is de ‘juiste intentie’? De mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden van de ‘traditie van de rechtvaardige oorlog’. Filosofie & Praktijk 35(1):49-60

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M (2004) Arguing about War. Yale University Press, New Haven/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward B (2002) Bush at War. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Desiree Verweij .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verweij, D. (2016). ‘Right Intent’: The Moral Dimension of Exit. In: Noll, J., Wollenberg, D., Osinga, F., Frerks, G., Kemenade, I. (eds) Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2015. NL ARMS. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-078-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-078-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-077-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-078-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships