Professor L. Strong
16 October 2014
The Unjust Theory of The Iraq Invasion
The events of 9/11 sparked a new fire under the Bush administration in order to fight the war of terror. By 2003, The U.S. government had reset their sites on Iraq president, Saddam Hussein. On March 20, 2003, President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then later renamed Operation Red Dawn, and American and British troops fought their way into Iraq (Library). In “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas describes, “[t]hose who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault” (261). In this case, the United States government should have not declared war on Iraq, since it was not a justifiable war due to Iraq not being imminent threat, was complying with the United Nation about weapons of mass destruction, and the limited possibility of success of winning the war. The invasion of Iraq was unjust due to the fact it was not in response to a direct attack or threat. In “What Is A Just War,” Estaing states, “A war must be a response to a specific instance of unjust aggression perpetrated against one’s own people or innocent third party or fought just cause” (303). The U.S. government felt Hussein could pose a threat in engaging war by launching biological or chemical weapons and possibly obtaining nuclear weapons (Kaufman 10). Prior to the war, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors found “that Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program” (Kaufman 29). In a March 2003 report, United Nations (UN)’s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reported that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been found in Iraq (Kaufman 42). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated, “Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons” (Kaufman 20). However, In “Just War Doctrine and the Invasion of Iraq,” Enemark and Michaelsen comment,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document