War of Retribution - Essay Example

War of Retribution The war of retribution is a justified war; it is a universally recognized moral use of force. It is a war between major and minor powers. The war has two widely recognized elements. They are jus in bello and jus ad bellum. Jus in bello establishes the rules for the conduct of war once it begins. It deals with matters such as the treatment of prisoners, killing noncombatants, use of poisons and terrible weapons, and appropriation of property. Jus ad bellum lays down the conditions under which war can justifiably be waged. It has six conditions that must be met prior to waging war. First, the cause of the war should be just. Second, the decision to go to war should be made by the right authority. Third, the groups going to the war should do so with the right intention. Fourth, the war should only be undertaken as a last resort. Fifth, the goal should be a likely emergent peace. Lastly, the war should be proportionate (Chambers 3). In 2003, America invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein from power following his alleged links with al-Qaeda and impending terrorist attacks against the U.S (Record 67). The invasion culminated into a full-scale war with Islamic militants opposed to Western occupation of the country. When America entered the war, it sought to justify its actions in line with the conditions of jus ad bellum. One of the requirements of jus ad bellum is that the war must be just. The Bush administration justified the war by accusing Iraq of making weapons of mass destruction and aiding al-Qaeda. The US government also claimed that the alleged weapons could be used against America. Although Iraq never showed any signs of aggression, the Bush administration created the impression that America was under imminent chemical weapons attack from Iraq. Any government has an obligation of protecting its people from security threats. Thus, in order to eliminate the threat, America removed Saddam Hussein from power. Therefore, from the 2003 American perspective, the war was justified. The Bush administration linked Iraq with terrorist organizations. The administration accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that undertook the 2001 attacks against the U.S (Record 67). The American people feared the reoccurrence of another terror attack; they were particularly afraid of the repetition of 9/11 attacks conducted with weapons of mass destruction. It was alleged that Saddam Hussein could supply weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda to carry out terror attacks against America. Thus, the war on Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from selling his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations that could potentially attack the U.S again (Chambers 6). Therefore, according to the American standards of ‘just cause’ of war, the war was justifiable. The second condition for jus ad bellum is that the decision to go to war should be made by the right authority. For the case of U.S government, the legitimate authority was the Bush administration. The U.S government acted under this requirement when it launched its invasion of Iraq. President Bush had the lawful authority to use military force provided he notified the Congress. The legal and constitutional requirements of the invasion were met, so the American decision was carried out by the right authority (Chamber 8). Although the decision to invade Iraq was done by the right authority, it can be argued that it did not get the backing of the most appropriate legitimate authority. The war did not have the backing of UN. It was not anywhere near the popularity of the 1991 Gulf War. Only three countries provided a significant number of ground combat troops unlike the 1991 case where 21 countries sent combat forces (Copson 25). The third requirement of jus ad bellum is that the groups going to the war should do so with the right intention. Although the U.S was criticized for going to the war with the ‘wrong’ intention, it managed to convince its people about its action. According to the Bush administration and authorities, the war in Iraq was aimed at lessening terrorist threats throughout the world. The only way out was to eliminate rid of Saddam Hussein and jettison his stock of mass destruction weapons. Prior to the war, President Bush had accused the Iraqi government of failing to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. He clarified that it was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein to allow the inspectors access to the mass destruction weapons. However, according to Bush, the Iraqi government made it hard for the inspectors to access the alleged weapons (Chambers 5). Thus, President Bush managed to create the impression that Iraq was indeed pursuing a mass destruction weapons program. Also, he created the impression that the inspectors had failed to find mass destruction weapons in Iraq because Saddam Hussein hid them. Thus, the only option was to invade Iraq and remove the weapons before they get to the hands of terrorist groups. Therefore, from the 2003 American perspective, the U.S. government’s intention of going to war was to bring peace throughout the world. Although analysts hold different opinions about the true intent of US-led invasion, there is a general believe that it was to avenge the 9/11 attacks. President Bush wanted to send a strong message to American enemies that any attack has devastating consequences to the aggressors. He wanted to rebuild the reputation of American military power that was tarnished by the September 11 attacks. In the world stage, any reputation of American military weakness was dangerous (Chambers 10). After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S managed to remove the Taliban from power in a matter of days. Therefore, the destruction of Saddam regime through a swift military campaign could restore the tarnished reputation of the U.S military capability. The fourth requirement of jus ad bellum is that the war should only be undertaken as a last resort. A justified war should be avoided if possible. It is true that the US-led coalition pursued a number of paths in bringing a peaceful resolution before embarking on the war. For instance, the coalition backed the presence of UN inspectors in the country (Chambers 11). They also gave the regime sufficient time to disarm. Just before the war, the coalition issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi leader to leave the country in order to avoid war (Copson 3). When these measures failed, the US embarked on the war as its last resort. Critics of the invasion argue that the U.S did not exhaust all avenues before resorting to war. There were other ways in which Saddam Hussein could be removed from power. For example, a popular uprising in the form of peaceful street protests could be used. If the Iraqis were given external support to carry out such protests, Saddam Hussein could inevitably resign from power. His weapons of mass destruction could also be controlled without war (Chambers 11). Nevertheless, according to the 2003 American standards, all peaceful means were used to resolve the crisis before the invasion. The fifth requirement of jus ad bellum is that the goal should be a likely emergent of lasting peace. A nuclear-armed Iraq could pose credible security threats to neighboring countries such as Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Iraq could also threaten the security of America and other perceived enemy countries. Thus, the US purported goal was to reduce such security threats posed by the Saddam regime. According to America, the ousting of Saddam and subsequent dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction could make the world more peaceful. Therefore, millions of lives of people could be saved (Chambers 12). Critics of the Second Gulf War argue that a likely emergence of peace was not feasible given the sectarian fragmentation of the Iraqi society. The ousting of Saddam Hussein could cause his supporters and opponents to turn against themselves. The Iraqi people could also turn against the foreign forces occupying their country, and this was a foreseeable non-peaceful outcome of the war. However, from the American perspective, if everything went according to plan, lasting peace could emerge. If the genuine intention were to scare potential terrorists and intimidate governments that might support terrorism, the war could bring lasting peace. The sixth requirement of jus ad bellum is that the war should be proportionate; the total evil of the war should not outweigh the good things achieved. Prior to the war, America and its allies believed that Iraq had significant stockpiles of mass destruction weapons. They also believed that the UN inspectors did not locate such weapons because Iraq had hidden them. Thus, invading Iraq could improve the chances of discovering such lethal weapons (Chambers 13). To justify the war, they reasoned that securing the weapons could save millions of lives of people around the globe. From such perspective, no one could doubt that the benefits of war could outweigh the evil that might be caused. The removal of Saddam from power could also prevent the future occurrence of atrocities in Iraq (Chambers 14). From a different perspective, the benefits of waging war were much less than the potential evil that could be caused. For example, the UN had warned about the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that could result from the interruption of efficient food and medicine supply channels created by Saddam’s regime. The US was also unprepared for a post-war Iraq and subsequent humanitarian crises. The US-led invasion could also interrupt the Iraqi education policies that had attracted several Arab students to Iraqi universities (Chambers 14). However, from the American perspective, the war was proportionate despite the potential outcomes. The world could benefit from the discovery and subsequent destruction of weapons of mass destruction. The oppressed Iraqis could also regain their freedom to live freely. It is imperative to note that these benefits were valid before the invasion because no one was sure that Saddam did not have mass destruction weapons. Credible suspicion of the existence of large stockpiles arose when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurdish, who were opposed to his rule. Finally, the U.S failed to find any evidence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq (Copson 19). In conclusion, the Second Gulf War did not meet all the six requirements of jus ad bellum from an independent perspective. However, if one goes according to the 2003 viewpoint of America, all the six requirements were met. As at 2003, the war was just because the US-led coalition did not have compelling evidence that Iraq was not pursuing mass destruction weapons program. Therefore, the Bush administration had the lawful authority to use military force to protect its people. The US entered the war with the ‘right’ intention because it wanted to regain its military superiority that was tarnished by the 9/11 attacks. The US also pursued different diplomatic channels before invading Iraq. Works Cited Chambers, Rene. “Just War theory and the US-led War on Iraq from 2003.” BMartin. N.p., 2004. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. . Copson, W. Raymond. “Iraq War: Background and Issues Overview.” US Department of State. N.p., 2004. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. < ttp://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19202.pdf>. Record, Jeffrey. “Why the Bush Administration Invaded Iraq: Making Strategy after 9/11.” US Department of the Air Force. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Aug. 2014. . Read More