The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton). Despite of all the warnings of war, President George W. Bush still tries to convince the United States that war is somehow justified, with his persuasive lies. Although they struggle to justify such an action towards Iraq, war is no and never will be justified. Punishment for such a decision will be the result of loss of allies and the appalling violation of the United States’ historical principle, “never make such an action towards a country that has not harmed America nor America’s depended on allies” (Dudley 28). The consequences, by far out-weigh the positive affects of war.
Once the United States could not find any WMDs, they attempted to justify their invasion as a humanitarian endeavor. This post-hoc justification called into question whether the Iraq War was actually a humanitarian intervention. The 2003 war represents one of the first times a group of intervening states have justified their actions citing the humanitarian outcomes that came about from non-humanitarian concerns. A major concern with the Iraq War was that the United Nation’s Security Council did not authorize the intervention, calling to question the legality of the invasion. In a pre-emptive strike the United States was able to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime but may have caused more problems as a power vacuum formed in the absence of the Iraqi leader.
With no regard to the end-state and the military objectives met, both the military leadership failed to understand the next move in obtaining their end-state objective, and the civilian leadership failed in delivering that message to key personal involved in the negotiations. This resulted in a weak position on behalf of the United States and a continued confusion on behalf on the Iraqi government on how far they can push their counter-parts and continue their will in the region. The matter in which we ended the war and allowed Saddam Hussein to continue his actions against his own people helps to sell the lesson from Clausewitz that “In war the result is never final” (Clausewitz, p. 80). Our arrangements with adequate planning in the war-termination could have allowed our results to achieve something closer to the final result. This was a costly lesson to the United States as it ultimately ensured future military options in the region in the years to come.
Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory. The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war.
Once engaged in a war other criteria apply such as the acts of war must be aimed those doing wrong and not at innocent civilians, prisoners of war should be treated humanely and with respect, and finally that there be no torture of any kind to soldiers of the opposing army. If these characteristics are put up against the United States and their strikes on Iraq, there is absolutely no way that the just war theory could classify this war as being just. The primary criterion for any war to be labeled as a just war is for that war to be declared for a just cause. The United States clearly did not have any such cause for launching a war against Iraq. The Bush administration’s newly proposed doctrine of pre-emption declares the right to initiate strikes against states that are deemed to be future threats against the US (2).
Political Realists clearly state that war is acceptable once it is in the state's best interest to do so, and once embroiled in a war, a nation must employ all methods to ensure that victory is the end result (Morgenthau 14). They believe that "war is an intractable part of an anarchical world system ("War"). And that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest. While political realism is an intricate and highly developed doctrine, Political Realists assert that its core propositions center on a strong rejection of applying moral concepts to the conduct of international relations (Ibid). Political realists denounce the idea of applying morality when discussing the justifiability of war for two main reasons.
The Iraq war has been a very sensitive and divisive issue in today's society. Although we can not ignore the cloud around this administration when it comes to potential incentives that going to war presented, (such as oil for profits and retaliation to Saddam Hussein for the Gulf War and treatment of President Bush Sr.), I will look beyond these potential motives to explain why the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was unjust simply because it doesn't fall into any of the four functions of force authored by Robert J. Art. The United States ignored the U.N. guidelines for peace, as well as its public protest against the war, to strike Iraq with an unprovoked attack. A war fought on the premise that this country had ties to Osama Bin Laden, was harboring terrorist, and had nuclear ambitions.
There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, not enough technology was developed in Iraq to target long range enemies; America was definitely not being aimed at. Nothing was being planned from the Iraqi side.” (globalpolicy.org) About the WMD excuse, George W. Bush lied that the Iraqi were a threat to its neighboring countries [Kuwait and Iran] and to the world peace due to the believe that weapon of mass destruct... ... middle of paper ... ...ading Iraq have been told to the outside world yet. If powerful countries with solid military force like the United States is able to take-over a country for personal benefits then where will the world end up one day? George W. Bush was definitely in hype or hysteria when he made the decision for invading Iraq, this hype led United States into the war. History should always be used for granted; history is just like a lesson that is thought at any school, if you pay attention to it and learn from it, astray will not be your path.
The implication of deterrence was used against Hussein but it was impossible to deter Iraq. In this paper, I argued that the United States failed to deter Iraq from invading Kuwait due to the Saddam Hussein’s misperception of the military capabilities of the United States, and his motivations to invade Kuwait for its natural oil resources. Deterrence is the use of threats or force to persuade the opponent that the risks or costs of an aggression outweigh its benefits. Deterrence is a psychological tactic that seeks to influence the adversary’s will and motivation. It engages the opponent in cost-and-benefits analysis by creating the fear of consequences.
Drawing off of this assessment, if becomes very clear that if he wanted to stay in power, even if he did have chemical, biological, or weapons of mass destruction, he would never use those in a foreign conflict, much less against the US because the US would turn around and take him out. Making others believe he had those weapons, though, by not allowing UN weapons inspectors into the country served as a kind of deterrent to other countries considering attacking Iraq. Given the stated goals of removing Iraq of these terrible weapons that could be used to harm the US, it seems reasonable to believe that this could have been easily accomplished by simply containing Iraq so that those weapons would not pass into terrorists’ hands. It was the US this time that used fear to drive its policy objectives by painting Saddam as hungry to use any weapons to attack the US and engaging in another armed conflict was not the best way to deal with him. If the US goals in the conflict were purely humanitarian, then it would be a different story.