Was the 2003 Invasion of Iraq a just War?

March 2003 saw the United States attack Iraq for the second time after a period of 12 years. The US launched the attack under the pretext of exposing Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), making it compliance with the United Nations (UN) resolutions and saving the country from decades of old tyranny. A year later, the US was unable to uncover any WMD from Iraq (Lango, 2014). With this being the case, critics have argued that all the justifications were proven wrong. The war on Iraq were marred with breakdown of economic and political reconstruction, intensifying sectarian divisions, and rising violence. The war became a litmus assessment of right and wrong war. Different people and organizations have taken different sites on the invasion. Specifically, some individuals favored the invasion while other came out strongly to criticize. President Bush maintains that the war was just. However, the scale of the war coupled with all the instability and chaos Iraq suffers today necessitates the need to defend arguments relating to the immorality and legality of the invasion. Generally, it has proven from time and again that this was only but a campaign of obliteration with no appreciation whatsoever for construction (Brough, Lango, & Linden, 2007).

            According to Dittmer and Sharp (2007), there is rare absolute lucidity in war. However, for centuries, the just war theory has been utilized to gage the morality of war. It provides coherent ethical principles integral in determining whether or not a war can be considered just. Two principles that can be used to analyze the Iraq war are proportionality and just cause. Actually, the two reveal the injustices linked with the Iraq war. The then US president stated a number of reasons as to why it imperative to launch attacks on Iraq. For one, he argued that Saddam was evil, hence needed to be removed from power to ensure the development of the country. Bush also added that the country needed to comply with UN resolutions demanding countries to avoid engaging in the development of WMDs. Lastly, the former president argued that Iraq required liberation. However, research has shown that the cause often cited by Bush was self-defense (O’Callaghan, 2015). The war after the 9/11 attack. Generally, President Bush was of the view that Saddam was a tyrant who supported the development of WMDs. He also reiterated that the presence of Al Qaeda sympathizers and operatives in Iraq posed an eminent threat to United States. As a consequent, it was just for the US to attack Iraq as a self-defense (Brough, Lango, & Linden, 2007).

            According to the president, it was not important or necessary that there were visible signs of another threat after the 9/11. In fact, after 9/11 such were not expected as the enemy knew the US defensive forces were on high alert. Nevertheless, in Bush’s view, it is important for the country to act preventively now failure to which it risked a catastrophic future. In essence, the United States was sending a message to its adversaries that any future attack will be met with severe consequences (DeCosse, 2014). From a distance, one can easily argue that the attack on Iraq was called for, after all, the president was activating to defend the nation. It was within his mandate to ensure no more attacks were launched against the United States. This included embracing preventive measures rather than wait until and attack is launched before taking an action. Nevertheless, there is more to the self-defense arguments that what meets the eye (Brough, Lango, & Linden, 2007).

            Consistent with DeCosse (2014), while self-protection is a classic example of a just reason, the highly hypothetical nature of President Bush’s self-defense argument was considered a moral problem right from the start. Many critics were of the view that the president failed to specify the nature of the threat the then Iraq president posed to the United States. The destruction and death that followed the war could not be justified by such distant uncertainty. There are critics who are of the view that Bush was being speculative and did not have concrete facts that could support the need to remove Saddam from power (O’Callaghan, 2015). The leader may have been a dictator. Nonetheless, this did not necessarily mean that he posed a threat to the free world. The president ought to have specified the nature of threat beyond reasonable doubt and how eminent this was. This could have enabled him to deal with the issue of distant uncertainty which led to people across the world questioning the decision to attack Iraq in the pretext of removing a tyrant who posed a threat to the free world (Brough, Lango, & Linden, 2007).

            Considering the outcome of the fighting or the attack launched against Iraq, the judgment that the war was not just holds sway and appears prescient. Failure by the United States to uncover any weapon of mass destruction has led to people questioning the threat Saddam had posed that necessitated the attack. Bush affirmed that Saddam could easily use the weapons to launch an attack on the United States. In his view, the US needed to act swiftly as failure to ensure the same could have led to it suffering a more catastrophic attack in the future (Lango, 2014). However, as it turned out, Saddam was not involved in the development of such weapons. Accordingly, the already doubtful self-protection argument used by Bush risks, in ethical terms, being much more diluted. One important question can be raised in regards to the democratic consensus of the American people to enter into a war using erroneous information or unfounded claims. The war would have been considered just if the US was able to recover the WMDs the Iraq was supposedly developing. The fact that his did not happen leads to people questioning the real motive behind the attack. Many critics wonder why the US government initiated the attack before getting all the facts right. Many innocent lives were lost in a war that could not have happened if the US took time to evaluate the whole self-defense issue (O’Callaghan, 2015).

            With the US being unable to provide evidence of any weapon of mass destruction, the president changed his tone and started emphasizing on the need for liberty. Specifically, Bush now argued that Iraq needed liberation and real democracy to ensure its economic development. This also shows that the Iraq invasion was not a just war (DeCosse, 2014). Consistent with the just war theory, a government must be able to provide concrete reasons as to why there is the need to go war. The causes must stand. This means that unwavering stance is of the essence. Changing tones is a clear indication that the war was not called for. In general, whatever the conflict the US had with Iraq could have been solved without any physical confrontation. President Bush’s speech involved Abraham Lincoln, hence was entirely in that key. …argues that is becomes hard for anyone to believe the arguments that the US was interested in liberating Iraq considering the fact that other causes that led to the war were proved to be untrue. If the president was wrong about Saddam and WMDs, he might also been wrong in attacking Iraq in the name of ensuring democracy (Rodriguez, 2013).

The just war theory also stipulates that a country should only resort to physical confrontation or war after other options or alternatives have been exhausted. In the case of the Iraq war, it was evident that there were other options that the US could have employed before thinking of using military forces to achieve peace or the goals it intended to accomplish. Some of the options were proposed by the country’s own leadership and approved by the United Nations. The Security Council also outlined some of the alternatives. President Bush’s administration turned a deaf ear to the proposal and still opted for war (Weeks, 2010). This is despite the fact that there was no direct threat to the country’s national security. Equally, the administration ignored calls by other governments across the world to consider the alternatives before resorting to more lethal measures. Bombs and missiles were launched on a relatively defenseless population.  The fact that the Bush government was reluctant to try the options convey the message that is was not committed to peace. One can easily argue that it was driven by self-interests and hidden agendas. If the government was really committed to peace, it could have tried other methods to resolve the conflict. In the event that the methods did not work and the problem continue to exist, then launching a military attack on Iraq could be justified (Affiliation, 2011).

The Bush administration undeniably deserves credit for the small accomplishment it was able to achieve as a result of the pursuit. Nevertheless, the principle of proportionality linked with the just war theory requires that moral outcomes are attached to their close and noticeable consequences. In particular, the harms associated with a war must be proportionate to the good or benefits. In relation to the Iraq war, the principle outlines a number of moral challenges including post-war chaos, glacial pace of positive change, that is, if any (Lang, O’Driscoll, & Williams, 2013). The country seems to be in more chaos than the situation before the war. This is an indication that the invasion did more harm than good. The US was interested in ensuring real democracy in the country. This is a goal that is yet to be achieved. Iraq citizens lack access to resources integral to their survival as a result of absence of democratic systems that could ensure equitable distribution of the same. People are languishing in poverty leading high mortality rate. The war could have been considered just of such problems were eliminated in the aftermath. Generally, even the Iraq people would have been convinced that the attack on their soil was aimed at serving their interests. As it is at the moment, they blame the US for all the problems they are currently facing ranging from, political, economic, and social challenges (Chan & Card, 2012).

The negative consequences of the Iraq invasion have not only affected Iraq as country but also the rest of the world. President Bush was able to gain the support of other countries in attacking Iraq as he claimed the war benefited the entire world. Basically, the problem of WMD affected all countries as the then dictator would have used the same to launch attacks against Iraqis enemies (Chan & Card, 2012). The problem is that the weapons were never found. The issue of the West Bank and Israel is also a major moral concern or challenge. Ongoing terrorism attacks in Morocco and Riyadh are also consequences of the Iraq invasion. Islamic extremists have been launching attacks in different parts of the world in the name of revenging what happened to their brothers and sisters in Iraq. Other countries are paying for the sins of the United States especially those that lack modern defense mechanisms that can be used to detect a threat early enough and stop it before it occurs. One of the goals behind the attack was to ensure a safer world. As argued by Lango (2014), the US only managed to worsen the situation as opposed to coming up with a lasting solution to terror problems. Critics are of the view that terrorism and terror attacks will continue to rise.

The US has also suffered in terms of its relationships with its close allies. For instance, it is evident that its relationship with France has been deteriorating after the Iraq invasion. In the same way, its close relationship with the United Nations also suffered a major blow. The United Nations did not support the US military action in Iraq. The then Secretary General Kofi Annan termed the war as illegal. The US defied United Nation’s stance and went on to attack Iraq (O’Callaghan, 2015). Consequently, this has tainted the relationship between the country and the organization. The US set a bad example when it did the same. Other countries across the globe expect it to be in the fore front in adhering to the provision set forth by the UN. Essentially, the UN’s ability to act an as a viable organization for world peace. In essence, other countries can chose to follow in the footsteps of the United Nations. Specifically, they can decide to go to war even after they are advised against the same. This also goes against the provisions of the proportionate principle. The world cannot afford the luxury of country’s going to war whenever they feel like by defying orders from the UN (Lang, O’Driscoll, & Williams, 2013).

            In conclusion, the US can attempt to justify its decision to attack Iraq. Despite its efforts, it is clear that the war was not just. Out of the three major goals the US intended to achieve when it attacked Iraq, it only managed to remove Saddam from the throne. Nevertheless, it failed to justify the removal as it had argued earlier that he was developing WMDs (that were never recovered), hence threatened world peace. There were other alternatives that the US could have employed before resorting to war. Clearly, the Bush administration was only interested in shading blood. Ultimately, the consequences were far much worse than the benefits, if any, linked to the war.

References

Affiliation, P. L. (2011). Blair’s Just War : Iraq and the Illusion of Morality. Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brough, M. W., Lango, J. W., & Linden, H. V. (2007). Rethinking the just war tradition. Albany: University of New York Press.

Chan, D. K., & Card, C. (2012). Beyond just war : a virtue ethics approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

DeCosse, D. (2014). Totaling Up; It Was an Unjust War. Retrieved from Santa Clara University: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/unjust.html

Dittmer, J., & Sharp, J. (2007). Geopolitics: An Introductory Reader. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lang, A. F., O’Driscoll, C., & Williams, J. (2013). Just war : authority, tradition, and practice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lango, J. W. (2014). The ethics of armed conflict : a cosmopolitan just war theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

O’Callaghan, R. (2015). Walzer, Just War and Iraq : Ethics as Response. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Rodriguez, R. M. (2013). The Principles of the Just War Doctrine and the Invasion of Iraq. New York, NY: Lulu.com.

Weeks, A. L. (2010). The choice of war : the Iraq War and the just war tradition. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International.