Introduction
The 2003 US led invasion of Iraq is one of the most controversial military engagements in recent history. As support for the war worldwide drops to record lows, and evidence of corruption, inhumane behaviour, and deceit on the part of the Bush Administration surfaces, many more people are asking whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. Critics of the war have been illuminating the injustice of this war since prior to the invasion however many of these critics have focused on individual facts and relatively few critics have evaluated it through a theoretical lens. The theoretic model of Just War, which has been becoming increasingly popular in the last few years among political scientists, provides an adequate means of evaluating whether or not Operation Iraqi Freedom can be considered a just war. Through examining the Iraq War through the Just War theory it can be seen that the 2003 US led invasion of Iraq was not a just war.
Just War Theory
Before evaluating whether or not the invasion of Iraq was just, we must first examine the theory of just war. Many philosophers and political theorists have examined the issue of just war. Of particular interest are the works of John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and Michael Waltzer. The theory of just war works with the assumption that there is such thing as a just war, and outlines two main elements to evaluate justice in war: Jus ad bellum, a nation?s right to go to war, and Jus in Bello a nation?s rightful conduct in war. For a nation to have the right to go to war it must have a just cause for the invasion, as well as the right intentions in going to war. It must also follow a legitimate legal framework through the UN. War must always be a last resort, and a nation engaging in war must have a reasonable chance of winning. Once engaged in a war, states must also follow to certain rules of conduct. States are required to adhere to the laws of war as established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuremburg Trials and the Geneva Convention. They must also adhere to the idea of proportionally, meaning that there must be ends to their means. It must also be keep collateral damage to a minimum and assure that non-combatants receive immunity. When these principles are applied to the invasion of Iraq it becomes abundantly clear that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a just war.
Jus ad bellum
Just cause implies that there is a legitimate reason for going to war. In the case of the Iraq war, the Republican Party under George W. Bush argued that they were invading Iraq on the basis of pre-emptive self-defence, and that the war had a humanitarian purpose. According to just law theory, Self-Defence is a just reason for war only if a State has been attacked. Humanitarian Intervention can only to be used in cases of Genocide or under extreme circumstances. Bush argued that there was clear indication that Iraq possessed, and were developing chemical and biological weapons and that they were expanding their weapons programs to build weapons of mass destruction. However, this assertion was largely unfounded, and manipulated by the Bush administration to serve his needs. In a private meeting between George W. Bush and his CIA and intelligence advisors, he was explicitly told him that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States. Intelligence experts said that Saddam Hussein could possibly have the means of getting weapons of mass destruction however they could not confirm anything. Days after this meeting was held the American Government released a censored version of the document entitled the white paper, which had every statement that said that Iraq was not a threat to the United States blacked out. In the area of weapons of mass destruction, many statements were deleted or altered to state that it was a fact that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This small change in the wording changed an intelligence expert?s opinion into a fact in the white paper. Among other reasons for entering Iraq were, alleged ties to Al-Qaida, which were disproved, bringing democracy to Iraq, and the harbouring of Palestinian terrorists, all of whom do not in themselves constitute a just reason to go to war, and can not be used as an excuse for humanitarian intervention. When seven days later he asked congress to go to war they did not know that in the original document all US intelligence agencies had clearly stated that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. The reasons for going to war were therefore inaccurate and did not provide a just cause for the invasion, rather it allowed the Bush Administration to deceive the American public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq.
The second aspect of just war theory stipulates that war must be sought after only with the right intentions. Since there was no credible evidence that the war in Iraq was to be fought in order to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was a threat to the United States, then it?s clear that they did not go to war for reasons of national security. The reasons for going to war are still somewhat unclear, though the most generally accepted reason among war critics was that the invasion was done in order increase the flow of oil from Iraq, and to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East. Another reason may have been that Iraq was one of the first OPEC countries to switch from the US dollar to the Euro, which challenged American Dominance in the area. Many nations did not support the United States including Canada, Russia, Belgium, France, China, Germany, Switzerland, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, as well as many others. On 15 February 2003 there were approximately eight hundred simultaneous protests against the Iraq war worldwide, which was the largest simultaneous protest in human history. This widespread public disapproval for the war demonstrates that many people did not believe the United States to be starting a war with the right intentions. Another important element to justifying a war is a nation?s ability to guarantee its victory. Although it was obvious that the United States would be able to militarily defeat Iraqi forces and overthrow their government, there were no clear plans for how long the war would last or what the stated objectives of the war even were. Many critics have accused the United States of engaging in a disproportionate war, and the failure to bring peace and security to Iraq after the invasion shows that the war will be hard to win.
The Bush Administrations claim for the legal legitimacy of the Second Gulf War is based on Congressional Joint Resolution 114 and UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and 678. However these provisions to go to war only lay out possible conditions that would need to be met before a war could be declared. Resolution 678 only demanded that Iraq formally accept the terms of the resolution in 1991, and the Security Council never gave the United States authorization to use force to implement Resolution 678. They attempted to justify their course of action using the new National Security Strategy under US law, which allowed the United States to use pre-emptive war to combat terrorism. However since there was no legitimate link between Iraq and any terrorist organization they could not use this argument in order to invade. In 2004, a year after the invasion, a high level UN council concluded that article 51 of the UN charter, which states ?Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN? did not apply to pre-emptive war. They concluded ?that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non- intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all.? Despite a great deal of evidence no member of the United Nations or the International Criminal Court have brought the issue of the legality of the Iraq War to the UN Security Council.
War should never be the first option for a country and should always be seen as a last resort. The United States began its public campaign to invade Iraq in 2002 and spent a year attempting to convince the American public that Iraq posed a threat to the United States. However there is indication that plans to invade Iraq had been in place since 1997 and likely earlier than that. Very few diplomatic talks were made with Iraq. The talks that were made between both nations were limited. The American Government urged Saddam Hussein to stop building weapons of mass destruction, but since they weren?t building any to begin with it made no difference. UN weapons inspectors had not supported the claims of their being any weapons of mass destruction. Before the war former UN weapons inspector, Scott Rider, concluded that ?during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, [weapons of mass destruction] had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 to 95 percent level, a figure which includes all of the factories used by Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction? Since there is evidence of a plan for invasion in 1997, then it is clear that the war was not a last resort, but rather the preferred policy option.
Through examining the reasons for the invasion of Iraq it is clear that the invasion was not just, and that the United States did not have a legitimate reason to invade Iraq. Despite the overwhelming evidence and opposition to the war, on 20 March 2003 the United States launched aerial strikes in Baghdad and started the Second Gulf War. Despite the unjust reasons for entering the war, the United States was still expected to adhere to a certain code of conduct during the war. In this case as well, the United States disregarded international law and committed many questionable acts.
Jus in Bello
Nations who are engaged in an armed conflict are expected to adhere to the laws of war as established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Convention. Some of the worst atrocities that have been committed in Iraq by the American government have been in their treatment of prisoners. Many reports of torture, rape and abuse of prisoners have been reported in Iraqi prisons. Many prisoners have been held in prisons without any formal charges or trial, and have been tortured in prisons such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. These atrocities have were ordered by high-ranking CIA officials and members in the Bush Administration. The first reports on the torture of prisoners came out in 2002 when the Washington Post admitted that U.S. forces were blindfolding, beating, and binding prisoners. In another early case, prisoners held at the Bagram Air Base were killed by their interrogators. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First have published numerous reports regarding the use of torture on Iraqi and Afghani prisoners. The Abu Ghraib torture scandal was the first heavily publicized scandal regarding torture. A 60 minutes broadcast on April 28, 2004 led to the release of many photographs portraying naked and bound prisoners piled into human pyramids, prisoners with electrodes attached to their testicles, and many prisoners being beaten and abused. The pictures contained American soldiers standing by giving thumbs up, or laughing at the prisoners. The Iraq war also saw the opening of a prison in Cuba?s Guantanamo Bay where the use of water boarding, a process where a blindfolded prisoner is held upside down and forcefully submerged into water was allowed and justified as not being torture. The prison also detains hundreds of prisoners that have not been given a trial. Such atrocities as this have led many human rights groups to condemn the actions of the United States and there has been significant public outrage to their treatment of prisoners.
The principle of proportionality examines the costs of the war and whether or not the ends justify the means. The principle of proportionality requires an acknowledgement of Saddam Hussein?s Human Rights abuses and examines whether or not the US intervention benefited the Iraqi people. As was previously established, the American government did not act justly in sending American troops into Iraq in the first place. The war has led to instability in government, civil wars, and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and Iraqi soldiers. Over six thousand American Soldiers have died while serving in Iraq and thousands of American soldiers have been injured or developed mental illnesses. The reconstruction of Iraqi cities has been largely done by private American Contractors such as Halliburton and Blackwater. These companies have also received enormous contracts to exploit Iraqi resources, and use private security armies that have been accused of war crimes, and killing American Soldiers. Bringing Democracy to Iraq has led to a civil war, and many problems regarding peace and security. ?The members of a political community must seek their own freedom, just as the individual must cultivate his own virtue. They cannot be set free as he can not be made virtuous, by any external force? It is abundantly clear that the ends have not justified the means for the Iraqi people, and that problems will continue to persist in Iraq for many years to come.
During war, no state has the right to intentionally kill civilians. This idea is stated in Article 51 of the Geneva convention which states that an indiscriminate attack is ?an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.? The Iraq war has resulted in the confirmed death of approximately 90 000 civilians, however estimates range from 100 000 to almost a million. The use of airplanes and aerial bombing is one of the main contributors to such a high civilian death toll. Reports of wedding parties accidentally being bombed, and people being killed at checkpoints for failing to slow down fast enough have surfaced as well. Adding to the confusion the US government has stopped performing body counts on civilians, making the total number of killed civilians more difficult to count. The unnecessary killing of thousands of Iraqis only further illuminates the injustices that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Conclusions
The Just War theory provides a way to evaluate the reasons for a nation to invade another as well as how a state must act once it has entered a war. As can be seen, the 2003 invasion of Iraq that led to the ousting of Saddam Hussein cannot be justified because it opposed almost every aspect of the just war theory. The United States did not have a just cause to invade Iraq, and entered the conflict illegally under false pretences. The blatant disregard for human rights and the Geneva Convention through the use of torture and the overwhelming civilian casualties will not be forgotten by history. Support for the Iraq war has been dwindling significantly since 2003, and the newly elected president Barack Obama has promised the removal of all troops by 2011, but the worst has already been done.
Bibliography
Bugliosi, Vincent. The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. (Cambridge, MA : Vanguard Press, 2008.)
Crawford, Neta C. ?Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War? Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (American Political Science Association, March, 2003), 5-25
Flint, Colin and Falah, Ghazi-Walid. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8 (Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 2004) 1379-1399.
Harbury, Jennifer. Truth, Torture, and the American Way: The History and Consequences of U.S. Involvement in Torture (Beacon Press, 2005)
International Conference on Military Trials, London, 1945, Dept. of State Pub.No. 3080 (1949),.
Scott, Peter Dale. Drugs, Oil, and War: The United states in Afghanistan, Columbia and Indochina (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
Ritter, Scott. Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America. (New York, Context Books, 2003)
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2001)
Reus-Smit, Christian. American Power and World Order (Cambridge, Polity Press Ltd, 2004)
Chomsky, Noam Interventions (New York, New York Times Syndicate, 2007)
Walzer, Michael. ?Interventions? Just and Unjust War: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 2nd ed. (United States: Basic Books, 1992) 86-108.
Amin al-Istrabadi, Feisal The Report of the U.N. High-Level Panel and the Use of Force in Iraq in 2003,
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v4/n1/12/#note59