Usa Iraq War

Following the military achievement of the US in Afghanistan, the US focused its attention on Iraq in order to topple Saddam Hussein. The Iraq War was a conflict that took place with the invasion of Iraq by the US on 20 March 2003. The American government offered two significant reasons for waging war against Iraq in 2003 (Klare, The Coming War with Iraq, page 3). First of all, the US claimed that Iraq have weapons of mass destruction that could be captured and used by terrorists organizations and would pose a menace to the United States. Secondly, the US argued that the Iraqi regime was a vicious and cruel regime that oppressed its own citizens, and only war could guarantee a new democratic state that could spread democracy out to other Middle Eastern countries. Eventually, the US declared war against Iraq on 20 March, 2003 and that has led to hundreds of causalities. In fact, the main reason why the US invaded Iraq was to secure its political and economical dominance in the region. In that context, whether the US-led war in Iraq can be justifiable or not can be explained by the Just War Theory of jus ad bellum. Just war theory consists of Six Criteria, which are Just Cause, Right Intention, Proper Authority and Public Declaration, Last Resort, Probability of Success, and Proportionality (Orend, War, page 6). Just War Theory argues that if a war is justifiable, it should fulfill all of these six criteria of the jus ad bellum. However, the US-led war in Iraq cannot be justifiable since it contradicts with the Six Criteria for a just war. Initially, the US recent war in Iraq was not based on a just cause as the US main purpose was to protect its economic and political interests in the region. Secondly, the US’s war in Iraq did not have an objective that can be justifiable with ethical principles, since it was triggered by the US retribution for 9/11 events. Moreover, the decision process of the US-led war in Iraq is not based on a Proper Authority and Public Declaration as it did not reflect the will of people and parliament. Furthermore, declaring war in Iraq was not a Last Resort for the US, since it could apply soft power politics through economic and political sanctions. Additionally, the US-led war in Iraq did not have a Probability of the Success, as it led to causalities of many people. Eventually, the US-led war in Iraq did not have acceptable reasons, and it was not based on the principle of the proportional benefits that bring benefits to the majority of the people. Thus, in this paper I will argue that the US did not have acceptable reasons to declare war in the US recent war in Iraq in accordance with the Six Criteria for a jus ad bellum, which is a right to declare war. First reason why the US’s recent war in Iraq is not based on the just ad bellum is generated by the lack of just cause. In fact, states can declare war to each other only for the acceptable reason (Orend, War, page 6). The just reason generally takes place in the case of the self-defense and guard for the protection of the innocent civilians form the probable atrocious and dreadful regimes and groups. It means that just war can only takes place where a country encounters with the infringement of its citizens basic rights and freedom, which means that it should not be done for the sake of any other purposes or goods. If we apply that criteria of Just War Theory to the US’ recent war in Iraq, it can be said that the US’ recent war in Iraq cannot be justified in terms of the just war theory, since the pretext for the US’ invasion of Iraq was based on the US’ aim to fend off any menace to its economic and political hegemony of the world. In this framework, Gowan, (Cooperation and Conflict, page 219) argues that although the real reasons why the US declared war against Iraq were that to disseminate the principle of the democracy in the Middle East, to assist the Iraqi people to topple an tyrannical regime, and to remove Saddam Hussein as he produced the weapon of mass destruction and advocated international terrorist groups that posed a threat to world peace and security, the main reason was to preserve its economic and political dominance by securing control and dominance over the main oil resource in the region. That’s, the US’ recent invasion of Iraq cannot be justified by one of the criteria of Just War Theory, which is the Just Cause. As related to just cause, second reason why the US’s war in Iraq didn’t have an acceptable reason is that US did not have a right intention to wage war against Iraq. Indeed, a country must have morally justifiable intention to declare war against another country (Orend, War, page 6). In addition to the right cause, the actual impetus driving a country to declare war against another country should be morally convenient. It means that the reason behind a country to declare war against a country should not based on the irrational and non-ethical motives, including retribution or ethnic animosity. In the case of the American recent invasion of Iraq, Turkes (Türkeş, New vs. Old Europe, page 21) claims that the reason why the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was triggered by the American aim to get revenge for 9/11 attacks, which eventuated in roughly 3,000 people causality in the attacks. Hence, it can be said that the US’ recent war in Iraq cannot be justifiable in terms of the Just War Theory, since it did not have right and morally justifiable intention to declare war against Iraq.

Moreover, the US’ war in Iraq did not have jus ad bellum, since the decision process of the US-led war in Iraq is not based on the proper authority and public declaration. The criteria of proper authority and public declaration entail states to declare war only if the decision of war has made by the appropriate authorities, which is detailed in countries’ constitution or international law (Orend, War, page 7). Indeed, a state should have that criteria in order to gain legitimacy and legality to wage war against other countries. In the case of the US’ recent war in Iraq, the European states and the US adopted different perspectives regarding the US’ recent war in Iraq, since there were disunity and discrepancy of foreign policy approaches towards the perception of the threat in Iraq (Akgul, The European Union Response to September 11, page 16). In other words, there had been splits and disunity between the US and EU member states to pass resolution regarding how to remove Saddam threat. This disunity and discrepancy put in question the legitimacy of the US-led war in Iraq. Moreover, Gowan (Cooperation and Conflict, page 218) states that during the US-led war in Iraq, the US did not take the consent of the assembly and the United National Security Council to pass a resolution to declare war, which means that the legitimacy and legality of the US-led war in Iraq is questionable, since it did not reflect the consent of the people and parliament. Therefore, it can be said that the US-led war in Iraq cannot be explained in terms of the Just War Theory, as it contradicted with the criteria of proper authority and public declaration.

Furthermore, the US’s war in Iraq is not based on the principle of the jus ad bellum, since declaring war in Iraq was not last resort for the US. Indeed, a state can resort to war only if it did not have any peaceful alternative ways, such as diplomatic and economic ways, to resolve the dispute in question, as war should be the least preferred course of action in accordance with the Just War Theory (Orend, War, page 7). According to this criteria, a state should firstly use economic, social and political ways to eliminate the probable war. And if that states failed in these way, finally that states can resort to war as a last practical and rational way. In we apply the principle of the last resort to the US-led war in Iraq, it can be said that the US-led war in Iraq is not justifiable, since the US firstly resorted to declaring war rather than resorting to the economic, social, and political sanctions approved by the United National Security Council (Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, page 78). That’s, the US could solve the Iraqi issue by putting sanctions on Iraq rather than applying to the military ways to solve the Iraqi issue. Hence, it can be said that the US’ recent war in Iraq cannot be justifiable in accordance with the principle of the just war theory, since the US did not apply peaceful ways, such as economic and political sanctions, to resolve Iraqi issue at the outset.

Additionally, the US’s war in Iraq was not based on the criteria of the jus ad bellum, since it hasn’t had the probability of the success. According to the criteria of probability of success, a country should not resort to war if it forecasts that resorting war will bring about the indeterminate result the on the circumstance (Orend, War, page 7). Here, the main aim is to hamper the violence that will ineffective. As for the US-led war in Iraq, it can be said that it contradicted with the probability of success, since it eventuated in the causalities and fatalities of numerous people that was regarded as fiasco for the US. Indeed, the recent invasion of Iraq by the US resulted with the human and material costs and has not brought about any change in the Iraq and the Iraqi people. According to Boley (War on Iraq, page 41), numerous people, both civilians and soldiers, has killed and have become refuges as result of the war that have long-term imprints on the Iraqi people and region. It means that the US-led war in Iraq was eventuated in the failure. Thus, in terms of the probability of accomplish, it can be said that American invasion of Iraq cannot be justifiable for the just war as it was resulted with the fiasco that led shadowy results for the Iraqi people.

Last but not least, it can be said that the US’ recent war in Iraq did not have a satisfactory reason, as the war was not based on the principle of the proportional benefits. Indeed, a state should take universal goods into consideration before declaring war (Orend, War, page 7). If the war will bring about the benefit and advantages for the majority of the people, not for that specific country’s interest, then it would be justifiable to wage war against another country. The UN’s intervention in Libya can be good example to illustrate the importance of the proportionality of the war, since the UN intervened in Libya for the sake of the protection of the violation of the human right committed by the dictator ruler Qaddafi. However, in the case of the US-led war in Iraq, it can be regarded that it was declared just for the interests of the US, not for the sake of the Iraqi people. In other words, it was declared just to secure American political and economical hegemony in the region, since there were no positive sum game in which all parties will gain advantage.

In conclusion, it can be argued that the attacks on the US on September 11 provided an additional incentive to the US administration to augment its hegemony and power over the Middle East. In fact, the ambition of gaining the control of the Middle East region and its strategic resources, mainly oil, was regarded to be a significant driving impetus behind the US administration to wage the war against Iraq. In this context, it can be argued that although the US waged war against Iraq owing to the possession of the Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s oppressive regime (Rees, Transatlantic Relations and the War on Terror, page 76), the US-led war in Iraq cannot be justifiable in accordance with the six criteria of just war, since it contradicted with the criteria of the jus ad bellum. First, the US’s recent war in Iraq is not based on the just cause, since its real aim was to secure its economic and political interests in the region. Second, the US’s war in Iraq didn’t have a Right Intention that can be justifiable with the moral principles, as it was generated by American revenge for 9/11 events. Third, the decision process of the US-led war in Iraq is not based on the proper authority and public declaration, as it did not reflect the will of people and parliament. Fourth, declaring war in Iraq was not Last Resort for the US, since it could apply soft power politics through economic and political sanctions. Fifth, the US-led war in Iraq did not have the probability of the success, as it eventuated in the causalities of many people. Lastly, the US-led war in Iraq did not have pleasing reasons, since it was not based on the principle of the proportional benefits that can benefit all parties. On 15 February 2003, as a response to the impending global catastrophe, the largest ever world-wide protests occurred with the attendance of 6-10 million people in over 60 countries around the world (Rees, Transatlantic Relations and the War on Terror, page 77). In brief, the US did not have satisfactory reasons to declare war in US’ recent war in Iraq in accordance with the six criteria for the Just War Theory. If the US declared the war for the sake of other reasons and taking other criteria into consideration, the war could be regarded could be justifiable, since it would not be contradicted with the six criteria of just war theory.

Work Cited

Brian Orend, "War", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Acailable also at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/ (Last accessed on 24 April, 2012).

Deniz Altınbaş Akgül, “The European Union Response to September 11: Relations with the US and the Failure to Maintain a CFSP”, The Review of International Affairs (Vol. 1, Iss. 1.4, Autumn 2002), p. 16.

Michael T. Klare, “The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration’s Motives,” Foreign Policy In Focus, January 16, 2003, p. 2.

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books, 1977, p 78.

Mustafa Türkes, “New vs Old Europe: Contested Hegemonies and the EEC’s Dual- Guarantee Strategy”, International Problems, No. 3, in September 2005, p. 21.

Peter Gowan, “Cooperation and Conflict in Transatlantic Relations After the Cold War”, Interventions: The International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 2, July 2003, pp. 218-222.
Poul L. Boley Law Library’s “War on Iraq” Available also at http://law.lclark.edu/~lawlib/iraq.htm (Last accessed on 24 April, 2012).

Wyn Rees, “Transatlantic Relations and the War on Terror”, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Vol. 1, Spring 2003 Supplement, pp. 76-77.

Cited: Zalta (ed.), Acailable also at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/ (Last accessed on 24 April, 2012). Autumn 2002), p. 16. Michael T. Klare, “The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration’s Motives,” Foreign Policy In Focus, January 16, 2003, p Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books, 1977, p 78. Poul L. Boley Law Library’s “War on Iraq” Available also at http://law.lclark.edu/~lawlib/iraq.htm (Last accessed on 24 April, 2012).