Abstract



War is as ancient as civilization itself. But is there ever a
justification for war? Just-war theory addresses the concept of just
war and why wars are fought as well as the rationalization for war.
This can be theoretical or historical. The 'just war tradition'�
considers the rules and agreements that have been applied in several
wars throughout history (Just War Theory, 2006). An example would be
global agreements such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions or the UN
Charter. There are two moral positions that offer a 'series of
principles that aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war;'� Jus ad bellum, the rules that govern the justice of war, and Jus In Bello, the rules that govern just and fair conduct in war (Ferraro, 2005).They are not mutually exclusive.



Initially, I believed the United States would be justified in the war
against Afghanistan because the media reported that Osama bin Laden had
masterminded the attack on United States. Like many Americans, my
television set was on the news and I watched the events unfold. And
like many Americans, I was driven by emotion rather than logic. Within
a day, the media reported that Osama bin Laden was responsible and I
believed that we should retaliate although I was a little concerned
that the government discovered the responsible party so quickly. When
President Bush decided to invade Iraq, one of the initial
justifications was that they were in some way tied to Al Qaida. As more
evidence came to light, it became apparent that the President just
wanted to go to war with Iraq and various other Middle Eastern Nations
and needed to create a justification.



Jus ad bellum, Jus In Bello



The first criterion to consider in a just war is a just cause.
Self-defense, retaliation against a wrong already committed, or to
preempt an imminent attack are considered just causes. Another
condition of just war is that it must be waged by a legitimate
authority, normally in the sovereign power of the State, and for the
right intention. The nation waging war 'should be doing so for the
cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or
aggrandizement'� (Just War Theory, 2006). The next factor of a just war
is that it must have a realistic possibility of success since,
obviously, the ultimate purpose is to restore peace. The next principle
is that the retaliation must be proportional to the injury that was
inflicted. It is not considered just to attack indiscriminately '
civilians are not acceptable targets. Unfortunately, the death of
non-combatants is sometimes unavoidable. A military installation is a
legitimate target although it might be located in the middle of the
city. This might have the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.
Sometimes it might be difficult to determine exactly who the combatants
are. Normally, combatants openly carry arms, but sometimes they dress
as civilians. Finally, war should only be fought as a last resort, when
all other options for peace have been exhausted.



Legal Groundwork


According to the United States Constitution, The President of the
United States has the power to make treaties with consent of the
Senate. Additionally, the Constitution states in
Article 6, paragraph two that 'This Constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'� On June 26, 1945,
the United States took part in the signing of the Charter of the United
Nations and it was ratified on October 24, 1945. At that point, the
Charter became part of the supreme law of the land as stated in the
Constitution.



The UN Charter states that it is up to the Security Council to decide
if there is a 'threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of
aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures
shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and
security.'� The Security Council may decide to not use armed force
(Article 41) or to use armed force if it deems that the actions of
Article 41 have proven to be insufficient or will be insufficient
(Article 42); however, members do have an inherent right to self
defense (Article 51). Having laid the legal groundwork, let's examine
each of the justifications given by the Bush administration for the war
in Iraq.

Justification


One justification the Bush administration used was that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. A threat to use nuclear weapons could
justify a use of defensive force than otherwise might be considered
when there is a less serious threat. However, there must be credible
proof to support the threat regardless of how serious the threat is.
According to Singh and Macdonald (2002), if there is such evidence, it
has not been made available. They also state that 'there must first be
credible evidence that Iraq has carried out, or intends to carry out,
an armed attack on the United States'� (n.p.) before that could be used
as a justification to use force against Iraq. However, even if Iraq did
have stores of weapons of mass destruction, this did not fulfill the
criteria in Article 51 of the Charter because Iraq clearly did not
possess the capability of delivering those weapons against the United
States ' there was no imminent threat.



Another justification the United States argued is that Iraq was in
violation of numerous UN Resolutions. The first observation with this
justification is the fact that it is up to the UN Security Council to
determine what action is or is not appropriate to bring a member state
into compliance -- not any individual member state; therefore the U.S.
had no lawful authority under the UN Charter to take unilateral action
to force Iraq into compliance. Additionally, the action taken must be
proportional to that necessary to fulfill the objective. If the true
objection was for Iraq to be brought into compliance with UN Security
Council resolutions, as asserted by the Bush administration, this could
have been done under Saddam Hussein's regime. And therefore, based on
the doctrine of applying the minimal force to bring about the goal,
regime change was unjustified even if the Security Council, or certain
members of it, may not like that government.



'He tried to kill my daddy'� was another justification tried by the Bush
administration. This would be a criminal matter and under U.S Federal
law, the principle of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it illegal
to utilize the U.S. military to enforce civil or criminal law;
therefore this cannot be used as a legal justification under U.S. law.
Moreover, under the precepts of diplomatic immunity and international
law, sitting heads of state generally are not subject to being served
with criminal indictments. It was on this basis that the International
Criminal Court refused to indict Ariel Sharon for his war crimes
committed in 1986, and this would seem to be equally applicable to
standard criminal crimes attributable to Saddam Hussein in 1989.



Freeing millions of Iraqis was never used as a justification for the
war but was an ex post facto justification introduced after the war had
actually begun in an effort to legitimatize it. Even if it were
introduced prior to the war, that would be an issue rightfully dealt
with under the authority of the UN Security Council and not an
individual nation. If that justification is considered to be
legitimate, then it must be evenly applied and therefore, the Russian
occupation and invasion of Chechnya, which is condemned by the U.S.,
would rightly fall under the same justification.



The justification that is repeated by many Americans is that it is in
retaliation for 9/11. Initially the American public was told that the
attacks were carried out by Al Qaida, an international terrorist
organization, with support and funding that is supplied from a number
of countries. Al Qaida has a close association with the Taliban regime,
which is what was used as the justification for military action in
Afghanistan. It had been suggested that Iraq also had close ties with
Al Qaida, but we now know different.



All of the arguments for the justification of the war in Iraq have been
discredited and all that remains is the mantra, often repeated by many
Americans and politicians, that the Iraqi people are now better off
because Saddam Hussein is an evil man ' not a justification, but an
excuse to make the war seem legitimate. In the end, as is usually the
case, the truth is much simpler than that -- the United States did not
need justification to invade Iraq but only attempted to in order to
make it politically tenable.

Want to comment on this Blogs? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Blogs and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...