Does Mill's Principle of Utilitarianism Apply to the Iraq War?

John Stewert Mill's ethical theory is based off of the principle of utilitarianism. This principle states that actions should be in accord with the amount of overall happiness that they result in and the greatest number of people who benefit from this happiness. It is essentially the greatest happiness principle which is, in turn, the greatest good. However, when we apply Mill's view to the concept of war, can we consider the enterprise of war to be a moral good?  Let's take the war in Iraq for example. The rationale for the war in Iraq was that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world"(Bush Admin). Now, I know that the war in Iraq was and still is a very controversy subject, and people are still debating the true intentions and reasoning for the war, however the key word to focus on here is "intent". Isn't that what Mill's moral philosophy is all about? No matter the effects of an action, whether they turn out good or bad, an action can still be considered morally good if the intent was morally good. Whether we agree with the US government's rationale for the Iraq war or not, for the sake of practicality, let's assume that we do. The United States military intended to save the Iraqi citizens and other countries from terrorism. The war was "campaigned" not as a war on Iraq but as a war on terrorism. Again, assuming that everyone agrees that this was the true intent for the US sending armed forces into Iraq, this is a morally good intention. However, when we look at the outcome and costs of that war, it's hard to remember that all of it was caused by good intentions. Over 4,000 US soldiers and a countless, unrecorded number of Iraqi citizens lost their lives to this good intended cause. Not to mention, the US economy suffered a hard blow with over $800,000 being spent towards the war. Nevertheless, if we are to think as Mill would think, we have to remember the concept of the higher quality pleasure. According to the higher quality pleasure concept, the elimination of terrorism in Iraq would have been worth the casualties and national debt brought on by the war. Does this essentially make the Iraq War a moral good? If the intent was to eliminate terrorism, but at the cost of innocent lives, which is equally horrible in some people's book, does this justify that war?

- Jessica Ealy