|← Ethics in Business||Work Ethics →|
The war on Iraq took some time for president George Bush to decide. However, this was opposed and supported by many people. President Bush linked Sadam Hussein with the September 11 attacks on America. These occurred back in 1991, many Americans were killed then. He also claimed that Sadam Hussein was creating weapons of mass destruction. For these reasons, Bush waged a war against Iraq. He did not even wait for a green light from the UN.
How the Organizational Structure Promoted or Disabled Ethical Values
The structure of the organization had its advantages, as well as disadvantages; with regards to the ethical values, the organization had incorporated people with different views. Starting with the president, Cheney, who was the vice president, Perle, Stephen Hardley, as well as many neocons, there were many factors, which affected the decision. The neocons believed that America was the single remaining superpower. They also believed that Sadam Hussein was a serious threat for the security of America. Therefore, they supported the attack on Iraq. They pushed the president into pursuing the war with Iraq. However, there were oppositions from all sides. These talked of the disadvantages of engaging in the war (Cordesman, 2003).People, who were against it, argued that this would jeopardize peace in the Middle East. Also, they did not see the act as ethical. These two groups either promoted or disabled ethical values in the organization.
The other organizational structure lies with the president. There was too much power vested in the president. Whatever the president decided had to be backed up. Although the president had his advisors, there was nothing they could do after the decision was made. This is the reason why the findings of CIA did not stop the declaration of war in Iraq. The president even refused to give UN ample time to finish investigations on Iraq. He made his decision to attack Iraq with utter impatience. This led to death of many people (Pfiffner, 2010).
Key Ethical Decision Making Points and Involvement of Bureaucratic Subsystems
There were key points where drastic and ethical decisions required to be made. At this point, non-elected officials played an enormous role in the decisions that were made. The first point was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Americans embarked on a mission to drive them out of Kuwait. This was an easy task for America. They achieved it in 100 days. The key decision which required application of ethics had to be made. There was the issue of whether the Americans should slaughter the Iraqi soldiers. The bureaucratic subsystem that was involved here was in defense of intellectuals known as neocons. They pushed the president to kill and attack Iraq (Florini, 2007). However, the president did not see the need of creating enemies that were not worth creating. Therefore, in this instance, the bureaucratic subsystem did not succeed in persuading the government to follow their cause.
The other decision making point was after the 2001 bombing in America. America had the option of attacking Iraq. However, there was no clear evidence to link Sadam Hussein to this bombing. There was also no clear evidence that there was the manufacture of nuclear weapons in Iraq. When the UN looked for such weapons in Iraq, they did not find them (McGoldrick, 2004). Even the US soldiers did not locate any of these alleged weapons. This shows that the decision to attack was unethical. However, the conviction of the president lured people into voting it in. Combat veterans did not support this decision. They claimed that the people supporting the war had never engaged in war. Chuck Hagel said that most of the people in support of the war had never held a gun before. Therefore, they did not realize the atrocities associated with such acts. This decision led to massive losses in Iraq. There was the destruction of hospitals, schools and the national museum. The war left Iraqis more miserable than they were before it. There was also the decision to wait for investigations. The UN suggested that the president should give them more time to investigate Iraq. However, he chose not to wait for this. The reasons he gave were later seen to be extremely vague.
How Geuras’ and Gurafalo’s Unified Ethics Models Affected the Decisions
Dean Geuras and Charles Gurafalo came up with a model for unified ethics. This was a situation whereby, the traditional ethics of different communities could be brought together. This could form a common ground for the application of ethics by all the involved parties. This was widely used by the Americans in the decision to go to war. There were consultations on other Arab countries in order to make sure that ethical values were being upheld (Haskins, 2007). The presidential group also consisted of different people who merged their ethical values into one. They voted for the decision to engage in the war. Therefore, they all considered their values and the conclusion was taken as their decision.
If I were in the organization, I would have asked the president of the effect of the war on the people of Iraq. There were two side: the America’s side and that of Iraq. The citizens of Iraq had the right for a peaceful country. I would ask the president, “What are the benefits that could come to America after invading Iraq without sufficient evidence of allegations?” When the president made a statement that Sadam was manufacturing nuclear weapons, I would ask the president, “What are the sources of this information and their credibility?” These questions could open the eyes of many people. They could show them that war was a way into more trouble rather than out of trouble. It could also reveal the political motives on the declaration of war (Sen, 2009).
The essay above is the proof of how the decisions, made at international levels, can have adverse effects on the citizens of a country. It also shows the difficult situations that leaders are exposed to when they are making decisions. However, the ethics in a decision is mainly affected by the structure of the organization in which the leaders are part. However, the ethical values in a decision are determined by many people. Bureaucratic subsystems also have a role to play. With this, ethics can be promoted in the decisions made at national level.