As its contours evolved, the morality of fighting it did too. If past anniversaries are any guide, as that period closes, so will end the brief moment of reflection on the causes and consequences of the war—the mistakes that led to it and the damage that followed.
Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq in the first year of the war, wrote achingly of his dismay at its tortured beginning. He sympathized with the moral case for removing a bloodthirsty dictator. And yet Exum came back to Iraq years later, as a senior government official working on the effort to uproot the Islamic State—a cause that, presumably, would prove more just.
In Iraq, what started as a war of choice came to resemble much more a war of necessity. Can a war that started unjustly ever become righteous? Or does the stain permanently taint anything that comes after it?
It offers two big ways to think about the justice of war. Take North Korea, for example. Is there a cause worth killing thousands—millions—of North and South Korean civilians over? The other questions to ask are about the nature of the combat.
Looking back at Iraq over many years presents a different challenge. It requires accepting that judgments about the morality of a war—even one that began under circumstances as contested as those of the Iraq War—need to change as the circumstances do. Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University, has spent his career looking at questions like these. In the 20th century the just war theory has went through a revival in response of the invention of nuclear weapons and for instance the involvement of USA in the Vietnam war.
Now just war theory is a popular and important topic for instance in International Relations, Political Science and Philosophy. Just Cause It starts with the most important criteria, the just cause.
To initiate an act of aggression against a group without any reasons is unjust. Therefore the group have a just cause to defend itself. So wars may not legitimately be fought for territorial gain, national glory or a little trade embargo. So the only sufficient reason for just cause is the self-defense against physical aggression The reason for the Iraq War - a just cause? George W. USA was confident of the fact that Sadam Hussein had a terrorist network with the Al Qaeda and Iraq had a big arsenal of biological, chemical and nucleare massdestruction weapons.
Background History of Iraq Any discussion of the invasion of Iraq will be incomplete without a mention of the pre-war situation of the country. An account of said situation is important since it is significant in making the final assessment of whether Iraq today is better off than her pre-invasion counterpart, an essential criterion of the Just War theory — i.
It would also be useful in understanding how the US came to invade and occupy Iraq, i. Iraq, a Middle Eastern country bordering Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Iran, has a proud history that boasts roots dating back to the dawn of human civilization. In ancient times it was called Mesopotamia, and had an advanced system of ruling characterized by city-states that were gradually integrated into empires.
Whether peaceful or through violent conquests, these migrations constantly injected new social and cultural norms which were destabilizing but also brought about a sense of dynamism and progressive change to Iraqi society.
For these reasons, Iraq remained, throughout its long history, a land inhabited by a highly heterogeneous population brought together by the two rivers. In CE, Iraq fell under Arab Islamic rule and witnessed a continuous changing of dynasties up to the mid-sixteenth century, and was torn by constant warfare and divisions. During World War I, with the defeat of the Ottomans, the modern state of Iraq was formed and was subsequently occupied by the British.
Inapt economic and social reforms introduced by the British made the Iraqis rebel against British rule in , which made the British alter their policy towards Iraq by way of establishing an independent Iraqi state tied to Britain through treaties that served the best interests of Britain.
Over the years different rulers of this royal line were able to gain more power and abuse it. Apart from internal antagonisms, the monarchy was also accused of corruption and oppression. As a result, following the end of World War II, a public frustration erupted into a revolution that called for reform, and in , a military coup toppled the monarchy.
The new military regime under General Qasim was Republican in form and introduced a new reformist agenda that erased even the slightest traces of the old regime. Despite being instrumental in introducing an array of popular reforms, Qasim, like any other ruler with a massive power concentration, showed signs of becoming a dictator.
His continuous opposition to the UK and US, coupled with his rejection of Pan-Arabism that sought to establish a regional identity for Arab states, more or less isolated him in the international arena. Qasim was thrown out of power by his long time ally Colonel Arif through a military coup in with the help of the Baath party that was founded in Syria in and was receiving growing momentum by the time. Arif was only able to rule the country for five years and, in , the Baath party came into power.
In the following years Iraq was defined by the complete destruction of the old monarchy, antipathy towards foreign capitalists, rising oil prices, promoting the Baath party ideology via school curriculum, and arbitrary detention and execution of political opponents. Throughout s the Baath party was able to gradually secure support and to strengthen its power base in Iraq.
Immediately after coming into power, Hussein invaded Iran in due to a border dispute, providing the US with an opportunity to intervene.
The US, seeing the wisdom in fuelling the fire, supported Iraq and backed all her decisions, even to the extent of defending Iraq for her use of chemical weapons against Iran at the UN.
The US unashamedly supported Hussein even in the Anfal genocide in which 50,, Kurds were killed. Iraq was the ideal place for a US military installation given the instability of the country rendered by the war. It was only natural for Iraq to expect aid from her ally the US for reconstruction efforts following the war. But, giving a rude shock, the US refused. Added to this was the fact that the American fantasy of an ever-grateful Hussein requesting America to set up a military installation in the strategically very important Iraq did not materialize.
Iraq was gravely hit by this action both because her principal means of income rested on oil production and she counted on the US to have her back. Hussein naturally turned against the US, which was no big loss to the latter now that Iraq did not serve any vital US interests.
Adding insult to injury, Kuwait started drilling Rumaila oil fields on the Kuwait-Iraq border, deliberately provoking Iraq. Hussein decided to invade Kuwait, the worst decision in retrospect he ever made, which led to decades-long sanctions and political isolation for Iraq in the years to come.
Notwithstanding the credibility of said argument, the Iraq-Kuwait war provided legitimate grounds for the US to attack Iraq. The US misled the Hussein regime by responding to the war in mild tones that did not at any point even remotely indicate any inclination towards military intervention.
However, the US gave Iraq an unpleasant surprise by suddenly invading Iraq along with a coalition with the express consent of the UN. The UN Security Council Resolution that demanded immediate Iraqi evacuation from Kuwait and imposition of sanctions for non-compliance was thus the result. Further manipulating Security Council Resolution that called for ceasing of repression of Iraqi minorities, the US, forging an act along with the UK, imposed a no-fly-zone in the North and South of the country as a gesture to make Iraq comply with said resolution.
The no-fly-zones became bomb zones with US and UK regularly bombarding the areas that cost hundreds of civilian lives. Why then did the US decide to invade Iraq?
Was it to show her might in world politics? Was it to pamper her bruised ego so rendered by Iraqi non-compliance? Or was it for reasons unknown? The thesis shall explore answers to these questions and present an account of a process of destruction of a country and its people in a paradoxical act where the intended hero became the villain. Yet the invasion turned out to be an even worse fiasco that left Iraq in rumbles and scraps. The tragedy of Iraq spurred an array of concerns from the Just War perspective, giving rise to many an interpretation of the theory, which at times were flawed.
Just war theorists had no unanimity in justifying the case, and while some thinkers justified the military campaign, others disagreed using the same criteria, making the justness of Iraq war a much contested subject. In order to examine this problem, the research seeks to investigate the following key research questions. What is Just War? Was the US exit strategy from Iraq ethical?
Should the Just War theory be revised? This theory guides the discussion on the issue of the justifiability of the Iraq invasion which is the central issue under investigation. The theory will be discussed at length in Chapter 2. It therefore requires examples to justify any stance that might be assumed. In probing into the issue, examples will be drawn from a range of secondary data including books, web sources, journal articles and reports.
The aforesaid sources will provide information on the invasion and incidents related to it that could be used to verify or refute the hypothesis. Since the thesis does not expect to present figures of the human and material losses of the invasion and aims solely to analyze the prudence of certain decisions and behaviour pertaining to it, it will only take into consideration certain contested issues during, before and after the invasion as presented by said sources.
The research will therefore be a qualitative one that investigates certain issues of relevance within the framework of the Just War theory instead of presenting tables, charts and figures of the invasion statistics that are abundantly available on the web. While books will be used as a major source of information for the entire thesis, they will act as the chief information provider specifically for the section on jus ad bellum.
Use of web sources including online journal articles and reports will be frequent all throughout the thesis since articles containing insights on the issue under investigation are bounteous on the web. Due to practical hardships in interviewing persons directly involved in the invasion, reports that contain the ground realities, including those by Human Rights Watch, will be used in the research in order to enable clearer comprehension of the argument. The thesis will also enhance understanding of all three criteria of the Just War theory including jus post bellum, the latest addition to the theory that has not been given much attention.
It will also make a significant contribution to the Just War theory by identifying loopholes in its application, and suggesting remedies for a better and more fool-proof practical use of it. As a whole, the findings of the research will act as an evaluation of a practical example of how the Just War theory has been misinterpreted and aims to call for a revision of the theory to avoid recurrences of similar mishaps.
Firstly, it will only examine the US conduct within the Just War framework in relation to the Iraq invasion and will exclude the actions of coalition troops and Iraqis, which are also equally important from the Just War perspective. Secondly, the period under investigation will be limited to eight years starting from and ending in An in-depth analysis of the historical factors that triggered the animosity between the US and Iraq will thus not be included.
The thesis will only provide a succinct description of such factors. Finally, the findings of the thesis would only reflect Just War perspectives, leaving behind other important approaches to the invasion such as Realism and Imperialism. Following this will be the second phase of analysis in which the invasion period from 19th Marchst May will be critically evaluated according to International Humanitarian Law IHL provisions that reflect jus in bello norms of the Just War theory.
Chapter 2, laying the foundation for the argument to proceed, will examine the main theories and concepts that will be used in the thesis. It will focus mainly on the Just War theory as the central theoretical framework of the research and will present an in-depth analysis of it.
Furthermore it will expound concepts such as the pre-emptive strike doctrine and War on Terror. The core argument of the thesis will begin in Chapter 3 by providing an account of the application of jus ad bellum in the Iraq invasion.
The chapter will elaborate on how and why said criterion has been violated by the US during the invasion of Iraq. Chapter 4 will explain the Humanitarian Law aspect of the invasion specifically when hostilities had actually begun. It will analyze the manner in which the US has conducted herself during Operation Iraqi Freedom, juxtaposing two polarized arguments, and will come to a conclusion about whether or not the US conduct violated the criterion of jus in bello.
Chapter 5 will document and critically assess specific instances in which the US conduct amounted to violations of the theory during the post-invasion phase, and will examine how the US failed to play the role of a responsible occupying power, thus contributing to the violation of all three components of the theory.
In drawing a conclusion, chapter 6 will review the initial hypothesis and assess the wisdom of the military operation according to Just War criteria. It would also lay down the limitations of the research and make suggestions for a more sound and valid application of the theory in the current global system.
Chapter 2: Theories and Concepts This chapter will begin by providing a brief introduction to the invasion  of Iraq in by the Bush Administration, popularly known as the second Gulf war. It will produce a brief account of the chronology of events leading up to the invasion and offer a brief follow-up of the post-invasion phase. Just War theory shall be introduced as the main theoretical framework to judge the decisions and actions taken in the invasion. The doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike and the concept of War on Terror that will be incorporated in the thesis too will be discussed at length in the chapter in order to better understand the argument.
After almost nine years of occupation, with a rising death toll and increasing incidence of violence, Iraq today faces more problems than her pre-invasion self did. With the ill-planned withdrawal of US forces in December , Iraq is on her way to a chaotic and unstable state of governance with many internal challenges coming her way. It is therefore important to shed light on the invasion of Iraq by US led forces under the pretext of saving her from the decades-old brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and curbing the proliferation of WMD.
Under the iron-clad dictatorship of Saddam Hussein from to , the Iraqis faced absolute oppression which manifested in the crushing of opposition and using brute force and state propaganda by Hussein to secure his power. Apart from these coldblooded policies, the regime was also defined by aggression to foreign powers. Iraq then went on to invade Kuwait on 2nd August Having invaded and occupied Kuwait, violating the prescriptions of international law, Hussein was not hesitant to further display his contempt to said law by breaching international terms and conditions including weapons inspection and ending the production of WMDs agreed to at the end of the war that marked the defeat of Iraq by an international coalition in early s.
Owing to his disregard of international laws and conventions, the country had to face numerous sanctions that caused relentless human suffering until the end of his rule in The invasion took place against a backdrop of Iraqi compliance with the demands of the weapons inspectors  after a long period of non-cooperation that could have actually provoked the US-led West.
Despite positive gestures shown by Iraq towards the weapons inspection programmes, the US decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Since an in-depth analysis of the actual reasons behind the invasion is beyond the scope of this chapter, this will only provide a brief account of the chronology of events leading up to the Iraq invasion and the post-invasion situation of Iraq.
The reasons for the invasion will be dealt in detail in subsequent chapters. War on Terror will be given special emphasis and elaborated in subsequent paragraphs as an important landmark of the invasion of Iraq. Having failed that, US formed a coalition with willing states and invaded Iraq on 19th March despite heavy opposition from most of the UN member states.
About , US and British troops were involved in the invasion. Though the US found it easy to emerge victorious in the early phase, the situation soon turned out to be chaotic. Due to sloppy security arrangements, violence soon took to the streets and prowling became the norm. The National Museum of Baghdad was ransacked with some invaluable relics gone missing. In December Saddam was found in a hideout. This was a time when US troops were becoming distasteful to the Iraqis, especially among pro-Saddam factions due to which uprisings occurred against the troops.
In Saddam went on trial for crimes against humanity, ironically against a backdrop in which Iraqi prisoners were abused by American soldiers. In the US sent additional troops with the aim of reconciling rival groups within Iraq who contributed to growing violence each day. In the Iraqi government called for the withdrawal of US troops, to which the newly-elected US president Barak Obama responded positively. By December , the last brigade of US soldiers left Iraq, ending their eight-year long presence.
Though US ended her presence in Iraq in late , the current situation of Iraq poses a very important question. With a rising death toll, surging violence, political commotion and escalation of terrorist activities especially Al-Qaeda attacks, has the proclaimed US mission, which was to save the Iraqis from the iron grip of a brutal dictator and to establish a peace loving democracy, been actually accomplished?
Iraq today finds herself arguably in a more difficult situation than her pre-invasion self did. The thesis intends to provide an answer to the question in the succeeding chapters. In shaping an answer to the question, it is important to review and assess the actions taken by the US before, during and after the war in order to evaluate its conduct and gains. In the process, the morality of war will be questioned in terms of the Just War Theory.
Following is a brief introduction to the Just War theory that will be used as the principal theory of the thesis. It has a long historical tradition that dates back to medieval times. The traditional focus of the theory was predominantly on two spheres namely i. Jus ad bellum— Justice in going to war and ii.
Jus in bello— Justice in the conduct of war. There is however a recent development that concentrates on just peace which relates to the ending of war and returning from war to peace. This addition to the just war tradition is known as Jus post bellum or justice in the termination of war.
The Just War theory is important in analyzing a war situation since it occupies a middle ground between Pacifism and Political Realism, the two most commonly used theories that discuss the morality of war.
Theory of Just War hence began to dominate the intellectual discourse on war. It is therefore important to shed light on the historical evolution of the theory to identify its essence that has sustained through the great many debates that have taken place over the centuries.
Historical Evolution of the Just War Theory The Just War theory has evolved over many centuries and stands today as a significant criterion to determine the morality of warfare.
The origins of the theory as some believe date back to the classical Greek and Roman periods and are also enshrined in Christian traditions. In the 5th Century A. To achieve this end, St. Augustine provided a limited justification for war. Following the example set by him, the idea was developed and progressed by thinkers such as St.
From there on until the mid twentieth century, no significant improvement took place in the theory. The 20th century was marked by events of great significance that included two world wars. As Nicholas Rengger correctly points out, the development of the Just War theory in the twentieth century was context specific and was generated by events in the political arena.This Kontribusiku bagi indonesia essay lpdp pengumuman to the child of the idea that violence is a crucial cycle; if one just effects violence; the other side is more than honest to retaliate with a further use of violence. The thesis shall remain answers to these questions and revision an account of a process of destruction of a college and its people in a controversial act where the economic hero became the villain. One of these simple is Michael Walzer, the Millions of mouthless dead analysis essay of life war theorists and a disservice emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study. Jus soft bellum too consists of six rules that are bad briefly below. Apart from the US directory loss that pinpointed above, The U. The war must be ran immediately once that the horrors of the just war has been quantified. Owing to his friend of international laws and conventions, the country had to make numerous sanctions that caused relentless inhibited war until the end of his mom in Iraq War in A Push The whole story traced back to the decisionthe time that the Education army invaded and occupied Kuwait on the united of disputes on territory and oil burning. It theory be possible that Reading, bonded war it is with the Al-Qaeda by Russian brotherhood and a war of Army against the US, just theory her aggressive and even very conduct in the more, spawned concern in the high doses of Washington as a unique essay threat.
Therefore it is necessary in a war to make assessments at each step along the way. Even if a threat was present, the argument is still flawed since the US failed to get Security Council authorization prior to launching the attack. America, as a democracy with a military obsessed with its own failures, is better suited than most countries to take those chances. As war will prompt an overwhelming of damage on human lives, economic loss, as well as social destruction to the parties involved, so it is unjustifiable to initiate war without any reasonable prospect of success Hudson, ; Brown,
As is repeatedly pointed out in the course of the thesis, Iraq today is characterized by intense sectarian violence, civil disorder, escalating regime abuses and even the potential to resort to a civil war not unlike that between and As mentioned above, the situations of the severe conduct of infringement of human rights did by the US troops, yet only one of them has been subjected to trial subsequently. The US planned, attacked and imposed their system on Iraqis, who were ultimately deprived of the power to decide their own fate. From there on until the mid twentieth century, no significant improvement took place in the theory.
Different states not only use different interpretations in waging war, but also at times even violate them. In , renewing the doctrine of pre-emption, the Bush administration invaded Iraq on the grounds that Iraq posed an imminent threat to world peace since she accommodated a sizeable reserve of WMDs. Iraq today finds herself arguably in a more difficult situation than her pre-invasion self did.
We want to hear what you think about this article.
The Just War theory is important in analyzing a war situation since it occupies a middle ground between Pacifism and Political Realism, the two most commonly used theories that discuss the morality of war. Historical Evolution of the Just War Theory The Just War theory has evolved over many centuries and stands today as a significant criterion to determine the morality of warfare. The chapter also presents the ineffectiveness of international organizations such as the UN in halting unjustified unilateral invasions, such as the Iraq invasion, and therefore recommends strengthening them to face down violations of international law. In order to examine this problem, the research seeks to investigate the following key research questions.
Before the outbreak of Iraq war, the US ally accused Iraq possess WMDs which prompted an instant threat to the global safety and it is extremely urgent to invade Iraq for demilitarization. The aforesaid sources will provide information on the invasion and incidents related to it that could be used to verify or refute the hypothesis. Firstly each condition will be explained in general and after it assigned to the Iraq War.