Just War Doctrine And The Gulf Conflict

Just War Doctrine and the Gulf Conflict

In evaluating US involvement in the Iraq conflict in terms of the Just

War Doctrine - jus ad bellum and jus in bello - it is my opinion that the US adhered to the Doctrine in its entirety. The US acted justly both in its entering into the Gulf conflict (jus ad bellum) and in its conduct while in the conflict (jus in bello). To support this opinion I will individually address the co parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine and show how US participation in the Iraq war abstained from violating the tenets of either co-part.

Jus Ad Bellum

Jus Ad Bellum, the justness of entering into conflict consists of six primary tenets: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, right intention, chance of success, and last resort.

1. Legitimate Authority - Only those of legitimate authority may justly lead its country into war. This tenet disqualify revolutionaries, radicals and/or subversives who seek to justly initiate war. War is to be the decisions of the head of state and is to be subject to their guidance.

2. Just Cause - A just conflict may not be initiated void of just cause.

This tenet disallows justifying war for the purpose of economic gain, land acquisition, or strategic position. If war is to be justly initiated just cause, usually humanitarian, must first exist.

3. Right Intention - This relates to the tenet of just cause. Just cause must be followed by right intention. It would be unjust seek a goal devoid of the just cause.

4. Proportionality - Also in relation to just cause is the tenet of proportionality. Proportionality must exist between the cause and the decision to go to war. For country (a) to initiate a total war with country (b) because of a minor violation that country (b) was responsible for would be unproportional and unjust. There is not cause enough to warrant country (b) being subjected to a total war.

5. Chance of Success - War must be initiated with a chance of success.

It would be unjust to lead people into a war they have no chance of winning. It would more just to bow to superiority and fight another day than to commit to a policy of suicide.

6. Last Resort - This is probab...

... middle of paper ...

... possible.

Though the US possessed immense destructive capabilities they employed only that necessary to get the job done. The most effective aspect of the coalition forces was their air assault. The various jet-fueled fighters and bombers the

US employed were more than capable of turning Iraq quite literally into a parking lot. They did not. Instead bombing occurred only where enemy forces or enemy armament was suspected to be stored. Civilian areas were not fired upon unless a threat, such as an anti-aircraft gun, was placed in a civilian area, and in these instances pin-point missiles were used to eliminate the threat with as little destruction to the surrounding area as possible. This adheres to the moral means doctrine which finds indiscriminate weapons unjust. Though the US was authorized to use any and all means they employed nothing more than what was necessary to complete the job adequately.

As I stated above UN Resolution 678 left the door wide open to possible violations of International Law. Despite this US went beyond the call of duty to assure that its role in the Gulf conflict was just. Risking their own well being, US pilots often gav