Controversial Issue Utilized by George W Bush during His Presidency - Coursework Example

Leslie Agustin Political Science T, TH 3:34-5:05 Spring 2008 The Bush Legacy will be the Controversial Iraq War The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 was initiated and largely conducted by the United States in response to what it claimed was an attack on its soil by various agents operating from within these countries. These actions have been defended by the U.S. government as not only legal but morally necessary to protect its citizens. The validity of these contentions by the U.S. must stand the scrutiny of the United Nation’s Charter as well as international laws concerning aggressive actions by one nation on another. Another consideration is the level of responsibility by the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq in the terror attacks of 11 September on the U.S., the actions which allegedly caused the invasions in question. First, this discussion will examine the motives postulated by the U.S. for military actions against these sovereign nations. It is the contention of this dialogue as well as the vast majority of the world and, as it now seems, the American public that these actions were patently illegal, immoral and inexcusable. The ‘War on Terrorism’ as it is commonly referred to, is phrase coined by United States government officials and is primarily used to justify the military initiative de jour. It is generally defined as the current conflict between the U.S. and radical Islamic factions. Immediately following and as a reactionary response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., President George Bush stated the county’s intent to initiate a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he characterized as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, legal advisors tied closely to the ideology of the Bush administration within the Justice Department’s Office advised Bush that the U.S. was not legally bound by the U.N. Charter or international laws with regard to rules of engaging a perceived enemy. These views were echoed by Alberto Gonzales, then White House legal advisor for the President and now Attorney General of the U.S. He also advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in the handling of prisoners, or ‘detainees’ in this war on terror. This opinion, shared by legal counsels to the President, applied to not only those directly affiliated with Al Qaeda but to the entire ruling party in Afghanistan, the Taliban, because, as they argued, Afghanistan was a ‘failed state’ (Mayer, 2005, p. 32). The Bush administration chose to follow the advice of this jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations (Mayer, 2005, p. 34). Most Americans now agree with what the rest of the world has known all along, that the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of western-Arab relations and was unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. This flawed justification has since been proven to be untrue as well. However, because of the occupation of Iraq, the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda has grown in number, increased attacks worldwide and has infiltrated the borders of Iraq. The war was wrong on many fronts but some believe that withdrawing would be committing yet another wrong. Even those against the reasons the U.S. is occupying a sovereign nation, such as Rhode Island Senator Joe Biden, a democrat, admit that leaving would be a catastrophic mistake that would plunge the entire region into chaos which would ultimately heighten the chance for another terrorist attack on the U.S. This discussion provides background information of the Al Qaeda organization and examines their beliefs in addition to many of the problems that would arise if the U.S. military withdrew prematurely from Iraq. U.S. troops are bogged-down in a bloody quagmire facing death, horrific bodily destruction and life-long mental issues. However, some argue that their sacrifice will not be in vain if they are allowed to accomplish the mission. To engage this war was wrong but with great patience and further sacrifice, the end-result could be viewed by future generations as well worth the terrible costs. The U.S. military is there and the only one in the world that is large enough and technologically advanced enough to effect positive changes, to bring freedom to this historically tumultuous region of the world. If not the U.S., who, and if not now, then likely never which is the worst of all options. What is now an impalpable situation to those that would immediately withdraw would seem insignificant by comparison if they were to get what they think they want. (“No Safe Way”, 2007). These assertions do not change the fact that the war was illegal, immoral and heightens the threat of terrorism rather than reduce it as Bush claims. The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. The first foreign mission of the U.S. military in its ‘War on Terror’, along with the ‘coalition of the willing,’ was Afghanistan and the Taliban terrorist group based in that country. The United Nations Charter, Article 51, Chapter Seven stipulates “nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations” (United Nations Charter, 1945). Article 51 grants a country the justification to deter an act, or acts of imminent or ongoing violence but only as a temporary solution until the UN Security Council is able to take the necessary actions to ensure the security of the affected region. By strict interpretation of this Article, the rights of self-defense a country may exercise does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped. In order to initiate the tenants of Article 51 it is first necessary that a nation experience an ‘armed attack’ defined by the explicit meaning of the Charter.  Can the 11 September attacks by Al Qaeda on America meet with the Nicaragua characterization of an ‘armed attack?’  While the terrorist attacks appear to be clearly within the definition of ‘armed attack’ by ‘armed bands,’ how these actions by Al Qaeda is in any way linked to the government of Afghanistan have as of yet not been proved in the slightest way. The use of force by any nation is condemned by the UN Charter, specifically Article Two (4) which mandate that nations have a primary obligation not to use force against other nation. In addition to Article 2 (4), the ICJ has clearly elucidated that a universal sanction on the use of force subsists “even in customary law running parallel to the charter” (International Court of Justice, 1986). The UN Charter does allow for two basic exceptions to Article 2 (4). Nations have the right to defend themselves or can initiate aggressive actions by authorization from the Security Council (United Nations Charter, 1945). The U.S. claimed to have possessed ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ that the State of Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, as did Iraq. Yet, if this is true, then why didn’t it divulge this evidence to the Security Council so as to have a legal right to invade? The U.S. justified its invasion and occupation of Iraq to the nations of the world by proclaiming, if not proving, that it was a mission to remove weapons of mass destruction which threatened not only the U.S. but all other nations as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials, particularly with the U.S. Department of State, eagerly endeavored to state their rationale for aggressive military actions and make it as palatable to as many other countries as they could. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine dated 28 May 2003 as saying “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction” (Shovelan, 2003). Prior to the invasion, Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, stated without a doubt and quite publicly that they had not been able to uncover any evidence of biological, nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq following three years of inspections. He went on to say that he doubted that these weapons had ever existed (“Hans Blix”, 2003). Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, widely considered a hard-liner towards the former Iraqi regime and a vocal advocate for thorough weapons inspections, said, again, prior to the invasion that he was “absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” (Sullivan, 2003). In November 2002, the UN Security Council drafted Resolution 1441 which threatened ‘serious consequences’ to Iraq if it did not comply with all conditions set forth by the Council. This resolution was unanimously accepted by the body a year prior to the U.S. invasion. France, the People’s Republic of China and Russia made a joint statement clearly stating that a further resolution would be required to authorize the use of force. The U.S. and UK, at the time, also took this position, at least publicly. Resolution 1441 authorized the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that any ensuing invasion was in direct violation of the UN Charter. John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador, while endorsing Resolution 1441 on 8 November, 2002, had both given their reassurances that their respective countries held no ‘automaticity’, or ‘hidden triggers,’ that would lead to an invasion of Iraq and would first seek consultation and authority from the Security Council before doing so (“US Wants Peaceful Disarmament”, 2002). Further, on the very day of the vote on Resolution 1441, Negroponte, said that “in the event of a further breach by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that the matter will return to the Council for discussions” (“Explanation to the Vote”, 2002). As is evident, such consultations and authority to invade was not obtained from the Security Council barely a year later. The U.S. and UK abandoned Security Council procedure and invaded Iraq in March of 2003. Though Resolution 1441 was not authored or passed as an intention to authorize war, the coalition of countries which formed around the U.S. including most prominently, the UK, asserted that another interpretation of the resolution was possible. However, Kofi Annan, who spoke with regard to the UN charter, declared “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal” (“Iraq War Illegal”, 2004). The U.S. government declared that ‘diplomacy has failed’ in March of 2003 and that, with a ‘coalition of the willing,’ it would proceed to invade Iraq for the purpose of ridding the country of its supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ The invasion, termed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ began a couple of days later on 20 March (“President Discusses Beginning”, 2003). Those countries and individuals, including some in the U.S., which opposed this action, based their viewpoint on the concept that nations do not have the right to intercede in another’s sovereign affairs. Others believed that while a nation could, in some circumstances, provide justifications for limited military interventions within foreign nations, they opposed this particular attack because it was conducted without United Nations approval and therefore was in direct violation with international law. The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, has condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, should be put on trial for his war crimes (Glantz, 2006). The trial at Nuremberg determined that military aggression is considered the most supreme of international crimes. Following the massive human carnage of the Second World War, the United Nations charter was written so as to prevent this type of action from ever happing again. It contains explicit provisions prohibiting any nation from using military force without consent of the Security Council (United Nations Charter, 1945). Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world has also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“US Threatens World Peace”, 2002). Mandela was hardly alone in his assessment. For example, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said on Meet The Press, a respected, long-running news program in the U.S., “I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be at the control the oil interests in Iraq, I believe that” (“Transcript: Dennis Kucinich”, 2002). Critics of the invasion charge that no nation has the right, or the authority based on the UN Charter, to determine for itself whether or not Iraq was in conformity with UN rules or to take it upon itself to enforce them. The U.S. has also been widely criticized for applying a double standard in its reasoning. The logic of this action is in opposition to previous U.S. policies as it supplied chemical and other weapons systems to Iraq in the 1980’s to use against Iran. When the U.S. was looking for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, the popular joke being circulated was “The U.S. knows Iraq has weapons because they have the receipt” (Goodman, 2003). The U.S. military has also committed many illegal and immoral atrocities since its occupation of Iraq which will not be mentioned in this discussion. It also used illegal, clandestine threats against other nations in an attempt to coerce their support. A report published by the Institute for Policy Studies analyzed what it termed the ‘arm-twisting offensive’ by high-ranking U.S. officials to garner support. Bush describes the nations that supported him as the ‘coalition of the willing,’ but as the report concluded, it could be better expressed as a ‘coalition of the coerced.’ As the war has progressed since 2003, the Bush administration has lost much confidence among the American public who are more and more of the understanding to what the rest of the world has known since Iraq was first invaded. The war is unquestionably illegal as defined by the ICJ and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. Works Cited “Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief: Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal and Being Wrong.” ABC News. (September 8, 2005). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “Explanation of Vote by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following the vote on the Iraq Resolution, Security Council.” United States Mission to the United Nations. (November 8, 2002). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Glantz, Aaron. “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” One World USA. (August 25, 2006). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Goodman, Amy. Charlie Rose show transcript. (March 12, 2003). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “Hans Blix’s Briefing to the Security Council.” Guardian Unlimited. (February 14, 2003). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from International Court of Justice. (1986). “Nicaragua v. USA (merits).” “Iraq War Illegal, Says Annan.” BBC News. (September 16, 2004). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “Transcript: Dennis Kucinich stated in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press broadcast.” (September 17, 2002). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Mayer, Jane. “Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s ‘Extraordinary Rendition.’” The New Yorker Magazine. (February 14, 2005). “No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn.” CNN. (May 3, 2007). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom President’s Radio Address.” The White House. (March 22, 2003). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Shovelan, John. “Wolfowitz Reveals Iraq PR Plan.” The World Today. (May 29, 2003). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Sullivan, Robert III. “Former Weapons Inspector Questions the War.” Cornell University Chronicle Online. (April 3, 2003). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from United Nations Charter. Chapter Seven. (1945). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” BBC News. (September 11, 2002). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from “U.S. Wants Peaceful Disarmament of Iraq, Says Negroponte.” (Transcript: Speech to the U.S. Security Council, Nov. 8). Embassy of the United States in Manilla. (November 12, 2002). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from Read More