There are many things that must be consider when looking at whether or not the end of a given situation was justified by the means in which were used to get there. The biggest of which is what was the cost to achieve the desired outcome. Was it a loss of life, damage to property, financial cost, or un-repairable damage to relationships whether personal or political? Could any of these been avoided and still achieve the same outcome? This has been a topic of debate on many things in our nations history, from war, to political races, to everyday life.
In today’s world where there are so many conflicts, battles, and wars happen all at the same time it is very important to ensure that the means that are being used will be justified in the end. From the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan to civil conflicts taking place in Sudan and regions of the former Soviet Union conflicts are happening everywhere. Are these conflicts just or will the outcome not outweigh the losses that will inevitably happen. One such case that we can look at to see if the end did justify the means is by looking at both sides of the first Gulf War.
During the first Persian Gulf War, the United States had a very distinct goal. That goal was to enforce the United Nations Security Council by removing Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military from Kuwait. To see if the end justified the means of this conflict lets first lets look at what justification Saddam Hussein used to invade Kuwait in the first place. History (2009) states:
In justifying his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Saddam Hussein claimed it was an artificial state carved out of the Iraqi coast by Western colonialists; in fact, Kuwait had been international recognized as a separate entity before Iraq itself was created by Britain under a League of Nations mandate after World War I. (para. 3)
Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait was a very costly to Iraq and the Iraqi people. Kelly, J (2003) states that an estimated 158,000 Iraqis died...