[rmnunez]

Apparently you aren't reading carefully, I said "we may have an obligation", and by "we" I mean humanity, not just united statians. Whenever there is a catastrophe, governments contribute relief to try and help, this happens often enough we can say its customary for governments to help others when a humanitarian crisis emerges. Until recently this appeared to be strictly voluntary, but scholars in international relations have reached different conclusions since Yugoslavia. That intervention was premised on a humanitarian catastrophe and took place without UN endorsement, but intervention was not specifically condemned and subsequently the UN has been contributing to the effort in Yugoslavia. Some have concluded the Yugoslavian intervention suggests an obligation to intervene to avert humanitarian disasters.

Again the lack of care in reading made you miss my reference to that "context" in the second paragraph. The "insurgents" in Iraq are not the targets of this global war against international terrorism. I realize insurgents and terrorists in Iraq look alike, but they are not the same. The insurgents likely are Iraqis, the terrorists often are not. It was suggested "jihadists" (terrorists or insurgents?) had a right to establish a theocracy in their country, all I'm noting is that jihadists who are terrorists often seek this sort of government in places where they are not from. Do you know whether any of the insurgents in Iraq seeks the establishment of a theocratic regime there?