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).
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Assess the view that Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) had no choice but to send US troops to Vietnam in 1965.…
- 2895 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
[ 9 ]. Lionel Giles. The Art of War by Sun Tzu Pax Libbrorum Publishing House, 2009, pg 1-2…
- 1227 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Martin, Michael. History’s Great Defeats: Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf War. Lucent: Toronto, 2003.…
- 1906 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. It has battled confrontation 222 out of 239 years, just about 93% of its continuance. Notably, one of the most crucial wars is the “War on Terror”. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country’s leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. While this war was strategically justified the real war between Iraq and the U.S. began long before what is officially recognized. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it promoted the illegal exercise of government power and democracy, encouraged continuous genocide and violence, and empowered an extreme capitalist regime.…
- 443 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The Just War theory tries to judge whether it is ‘just’ to go to war and how the war should be fought. It tries to reconcile three things; taking a human life is seriously wrong. That states have a duty to defend their citizens and defend justice and thirdly protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values.…
- 581 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
1. How does public opinion affect foreign policy? Is public opinion permissive or constraining? Does the U.S. public support the use of force? Under what conditions?…
- 4433 Words
- 18 Pages
Good Essays -
In the last decade, America has engaged in war in two middle-eastern countries. These countries are Afghanistan and Iraq. America has waged war against these countries for common reasons, but each war also had its unique cause for war. America had a just cause in its war in Afghanistan, but its participation in the war in Iraq is debated. Two presidents who had to lead and deal with these wars were President George Washington Bush who was in office from 2000 to 2008, and current President Barack Obama who came into office 2008 and is currently in office. Two administrations created by the following Presidents were the Bush administration and the Obama administration created by President George W. Bush and Barack Obama respectively. The legitimacy of these wars in these respective countries is on the minds of many Americans today.…
- 1940 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Just cause: In my opinion, the United States had no right to go into Iraq based solely on a theory that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. According to the Just War Theory, war is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger," to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.…
- 262 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
After September 11, President Bush and his administration, associated the Iraqi regime with terrorism, and said Iraq had the capacity to produce Weapons of Mass Destruction, which could be used by terrorists to threaten the United States. Therefore, encouraging the U.S. citizens to support Bush and reelect him as President because he would take action by sending troops to Iraq, to find Saddam and other terrorists, while obtaining weapons that could potentially be used against the U.S. However, over time Bush and his administration began to lose support for their action taken in the war.…
- 689 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
America can help create an environment in Afghanistan for the establishment of a stable government, and it can help the Afghans rebuild important state institutions, including a national army and a police force. But only the Afghans themselves can build a nation.…
- 639 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
This theory focuses on three main points: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum (Bass). Jus ad Bellum translates to “right to war”. This term encompasses the justifications that must be met in order for a government to decide to go to war. These justifications must be decided upon by a legitimate authority, primarily based on a just cause such as an act of aggression. For example, following the attacks of September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush declared to the general public that the crimes committed on American soil would be met with justice, and “the Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate" (Pellegrini). Those malicious attacks of terror and aggression justified a declaration of war. Additionally, the right to war can be justified by a last resort in order to achieve a just goal if there is reasonable hope of success and proportionality (the good must outweigh the evil), through formal declaration and with the right intention (pursuit of a just cause with the ultimate goal of peace)…
- 1946 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Bush’s war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties.” I completely agree with George Sorors thoughts on the war between the United States and Iraq.…
- 626 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
There are many reasons why the war Iraq was unjustified. Until today, Iraq has not been found to have weapons of mass destruction. There are beliefs that former President George W. Bush simply waged war on Iraq because of their oil. Iraq as a country and the former President Saddam Hussein had no link to al-Qaeda terrorist group. The United States congress, based on wrong intelligence from the Bush’s administration agreed unanimously to go to war with Iraq, despite the fact that the Unites Nations disagreed with the decision. Because of the decision to wage war on Iraq, The United States lost most of its allies. “A war on Iraq for the purpose of “regime change” would not be a legal war under international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.” (Miller, 2003).…
- 861 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
As I read Ralph Ellison’s “Battle Royal”, pushes one in the direction of the Marxist perspective. This perspective demonstrates how the dominant white male majority uses its power to summarily subjugate black males in a pugilistic affair. The Marxist perspective is evidently portrayed through the use of human symbols such as hedonistic eroticism, hardcore racism, barbarism in the form of race on race destructive warfare and the sadistic contortion plot laid before the young men that dance and writhe in pain from shock given by the electrified carpet that held the reward of coins. Ralph Ellison gives the reader a real taste of the pungent and raw sanctioned racism that thrived in the United States of America and was served up routinely for the African-American man of his time. What in the psyche of the dominant white male determines their desired to sponsor and attend the Battle Royal?…
- 1343 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
The Bush administration had sent US troops to Iraq because there was a belief that the country had been developing weapons of mass destruction and were an aid to Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, a portion of America had supported this possible war as “44 percent of Americans reported [in a poll] that either ‘most or ‘some of the Sept.11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero”( The Christian Science Monitor, March 14,2003). Moreover, America wanting to hurt Iraq was seen as a victim mentality act by others. On claimed that “We [Americans] do those who lost their lives no service at all by adopting a victim mentality”(An attack on Us All: NATO’s Response to Terrorism). This indicates that America had dwelled so much in this tragedy that their grievance became anger and that led into violence. Instead America should not thier anger interfere but rather “think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to [the] world” (Zinn & Arnove, eds. (2009). Voices of a People’s History, 2nd edition (NY: Seven Stories Press), p. 603.). America invading Iraq was seen injustice since their involvement in the 9/11 attack was more of an assumption then factual…
- 710 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays