Just War Theory Concept - Case Study Example

Introduction According to just war, specific war can be justified or ified as just if it meets certain conditions. Just war defines war as a warthat is really against military aggression or its threat. It also refers to intentional threat that is serious in nature. It is also defined in other words as a war that includes the intervention of human rights. It normally has to satisfy a proportionality norm. The gains of the just war have to exceed the costs incurred. Just war is actually an attempt to distinguish unjustifiable and justifiable uses of armed forces that are organized. This involves the issue of using armed forces when it is right to do so. Just war defines war as a situation where parties have to fight back basing on various conditions. This includes having a just cause. This means that parties need to have just reasons for going to war. (DeForrest, 1997) Through out history human beings have continued to engage in war at different times for different reasons. Human beings have used war as a method of solving conflicts, yet, at the same time, war have been condemned by human beings as unnecessary. Accordingly, though war has been a continued to be part of human history, human beings have always tried to reduce the extent of war by which the war may be fought. (DeForrest, 1997) Over the past, the question of when is war "justified" and which methods are suitable in a war has raised a vast deal of assessment. The great examination of the question has lead to the concept of just war to try and explain the when military action is justified. Just war theory has been accepted in many countries as way in which just war may be determined. Relevance of just war concept to US-led war on Iraq The cause has to be right According to Wells (1996) he argues that war is justified if it is fought in reaction to aggression. The aggression can be directed to another state or towards a region of another state, threatening the political independence of that particular state. Principles of just war Despite the diverse sources in formulation of just war theory, it basically has two basic major issues in regard to legitimizing a war. The first basic issue termed as "jus ad bellum" a Latin term meaning right or just to resort to war, which relates to when it is proper to get engaged in war. The second fundamental issue, jus de bello determines the justified methods of warfare within a war. Application of just war In 2003 the United States led a coalition of international military against the Iraq regime which was headed by President Saddam Hussein. The military action war meant to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein which was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threaten the stability of the region, America and the world as a whole. The military action that was taken by America in 2003 and its allies have led to one of the bloodiest war in the modern history and a major debate on if the war just or not just. (Rampton and Stauber, 2003) In order of the war to be just six aspects underlined in the just war theory must be fulfilled this are; 1. A just cause of the war has to be established 2. Right authority has to make the decision of resorting to war 3. Groups resorting to war must have a right for engaging in the war 4. War should be started only as the last option 5. The aim of the war should be creating peace 6. The war should be proportionate Application of the theory to US-led war on Iraq Just cause Wells (1996) clearly, states that a just war is taken as a response to hostility, a use of force or threat poised by a state or a region against political independence or territory integrity of another country. Chomsky (2003) note that, in recent times, defending another state and protecting victims of massacre have been added to just war. The issue is then if US led coalition war on Iraq had a just cause in acting Iraq in 2003. To be specific was the war undertaken to counter the aggression of Iraq The US president George Bush did identify the aggression of Iraq in twofold. Bush pointed out that Iraq had concealed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which it could use to harm the American citizens or other innocent citizens of other countries. According to Bush in an address he gave out he clearly stated that; The UN had made conclusions in 1999 that Saddam Hussein did have biological weapons that were enough to yield more than 25000 litters of anthrax, which was enough to kill some millions of people. Yet, Saddam has not explained or accounted for it, neither has he destroyed them has no evidence has been given. The US intelligence shows that Saddam had more than 30,000 munitions which are able to deliver chemical agents. The UN inspectors found out 16 of them in spite of Iraq denying their existence. Yet again the remaining 29,984 munitions have not been accounted by Saddam Hussein. (Rampton and Stauber, 2003) Thus, the president gave the idea that US was a potential target of the Iraq aggression. And the WMD of Iraq had to be destroyed, and saddam should not remain in power as he argued that this could pose a high danger to US territorial integrity. The second point of Bush was that Saddam Hussein sell or cooperate with terrorists, by giving them technology or WMD to attack the US. Thus, the US argued that it was necessary to take military action to respond to the Iraq actions of aggression and also ensure that saddam Hussein do not sell his WMD or the technology to the terrorist groups. (Chomsky, 2003) However, in analysing the issue further it can be seen that the justifications/validations presented by Bush do not meet the required elements of just cause. Because in regard to Saddam Hussein WMD, (Rampton and Stauber, 2003) asserts that such line of thoughts do not make a lot of sense when you relate it to the US military policies in regard to North Korea which also possessed WMD and more so had ability of firing them against the US . Chomsky (2003) stress point when he points out that North Korea had 100 missiles which had a range of 1,000 kilometres and could reach the west coast of the US. In regard to saddam Hussein selling his weapons to terrorists, this according to (Rampton and Stauber, 2003) this was most unlikely because Osama bin Laden hated the Iraq regime so much. Thus though, it was true that saddam Hussein was a brutal leader, but it is unlikely that he was a threat to the US. Thus, it is certain that just cause requirements were not met. (Rampton and Stauber, 2003) Right authority In relation to the war the US did use the right authority considering that it was the given by the president who is the head of the armed forces. Thus the right power suctions the war in line to just war requirements. Right intention The single right intention of going to war is aim of correcting the wrongs of the aggressor and creating peace (wells, 1996) the motives of those going to war should not have any desires for revenge or vengeance. It remains debatable if the US-and it allies did not have any desires for revenge or retribution when going to war in Iraq. While it be said that the US went to war to bring peace, it can also be argued that the US had self interests when going to war. And thus the right intention requirements were not met. War as a last resort For war to be justified all alternatives must be exhausted. Wells (1996) points out that just war concept maintain that war should be avoided at all costs. The issue is thus if the US led coalition exhausted all options before resorting to war. It is reasonable to state the coalition forces did try several avenues to bring about a peaceful solution by using UN backed arms inspectors and using diplomatic procedures of the UN. (Gillespie, 2004) However, it is argued that all options were not exhausted, for example the Iraq people given a chance and means could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. Thus one can argue that the requirement was not satisfied. (Gillespie, 2004) Aim of war has to be peace The theory of just war states that the aim of war should be to bring peace. Thus the question is if the US-led coalition war could bring peace. If the gals of waging war in Iraq could have been achieved then peace could have achieved. For instance, destruction of WMD and removal of Saddam Hussein, However, the repercussion of the war were not foreseen. As Manne (2003) states the instant result of war could be tragic. However the outcome of the war and whether this requirement was fulfilled or not remains to be seen Manne (2003) Just war has to be proportionate For war to be just it needs to be proportionate, that is the total good coming from the war should be more than the total evil before the war. Supposing the price of the planed war is high including the suffering, death, cultural and economic cost then it is not proportionate. For the case of the Iraq war removing saddam Hussein and destroying WMD stock pile was of high value. His removal would have lead to end of torture and killing of thousands of Iraq people. However, there are several humanitarian problems that the Iraq people were bound to suffer during and after he war. Thus, measuring the proportionate of the war remains subjective if the total good from the war outweigh the evil before the war. Conclusion Just war theory outlines six main principles that a nation or a body going to war must satisfy for the war to be just. Given that the US-led coalition did not satisfy all the six requirements before invading Iraq, it can therefore be concluded that the Iraq war was not just. In particular the study shows that the US-led coalition did not met the necessary requirements for a just cause, did not have the right intention and did not exhausted all possible means of avoiding the war. Though some media still represents the war as being "just" it is clear that it can not be just has it did NOT fulfil all the six requirements. Reference: Chomsky, N (2003) Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Australia:Allen and Unwin, DeForrest, M.( 1997): "Just War Theory and the Recent U.S. Air Strikes Against Iraq" in AcrossBorders, http://www.across-borders.com, , date of access 05/12/07. Gillespie, R.(2004): Invasion of Iraq, Australia: Mekamui Publications, . Hess, S., and Kalb, M. (2003):The Media and the War on Terrorism, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, Holmes, R.(1992): Can War be Morally Justified The Just War Theory", in Elshtain, J. JustWar Theory, New York: New York University Press, Manne, R. (2003): Armed with everything except moral authority", published in The Sydney Morning Herald, 10/2/2003. Martin, B.(2003): "A nonviolent plan to oust Saddam", published in The Illawarra Mercury, 3/10/2003. Murray, W., and Scales, E (2003): The Iraq War: A Military History, London: Harvard University Press, . Rampton, S. and Stauber, J. (2003): Weapons of Mass Deception: Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, Sydney: Hodder Press,. Schechter, D.(2003): Media Wars: News at a Time of Terror, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Wells, D. (1996): An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics. London: Greenwood Press, Read More