The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 Was Not a Just War - Essay Example

The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a Just War The invasion of Iraq by the United States of America began on 19th March 2003 (Heinze, 2009). This involved military strikes using satellite guided bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles (Bonn and Welch, 2010). The war was officially declared on 20th march 2003. This essay argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a just war based on the primary aims and objectives given for its launch. The main reason that was given for invasion of Iraq was to destroy weapons of mass destruction that were allegedly possessed by Saddam Hussein regime. The proponents of the war, US and the British governments, asserted that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the security in the region and that of western countries (Jaramillo, 2009). Based on this, the two governments argued that the only solution to remove this security threat was to intervene and change Saddam regime in order to disarm Iraq forcefully. Iraq was considered a nation that failed to comply with the requirements and demands of the global community and as such, USA and Britain argued that it was an international danger (Heinze, 2009). This was aggravated by Iraq’s hostility to neighbours in the past. Moreover, it was believed that Saddam’s regime was involved in the sponsorship of terrorist groups. It was believed that Iraq’s regime created conditions that necessitated growth of terrorism and that the regime itself was a rogue one. USA government also insinuated that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack and that Saddam had links with al Qaeda (Plappert, 2010). None of these reasons was ever proven. The linkage of Saddam to al Qaeda was unproven and illogical since Saddam had different political ideologies from that of al Qaeda and he was an enemy of al Qaeda for long (Bonn and Welch, 2010). The fact that Saddam posed security threat to USA is also refutable. Saddam regime was not in any position to pose security threat to USA since he had no linkage to al Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. In fact, critics of the war argue that the invasion itself increased security threats to America since it increased radical Islamic movements in the Middle East and Iraq in addition to increasing anti-American sentiments (Jaramillo, 2009). This is because the invasion was viewed as a new way of imperialism. Moreover, inhuman treatment of prisoners of war in places such as Abu Graib and multitude of civilian deaths damaged American reputation. Furthermore, instead of the war creating a stable Iraq, it has created unstable, dangerous and turbulent country in addition to destabilizing the region at large. Thus, America is more unsecure that before the war (Heinze, 2009). Thus, based on weapons of mass destruction and security reasons, America was not justified to lead an invasion in Iraq since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and since Saddam posed no security threats to US. Another reason put forward to justify the war was democratization of Iraq (Bonn and Welch, 2010). USA believed that dictatorial and undemocratic regimes created enabling conditions for growth of terror gangs and is more likely to engage in war and to create conflicts and tensions in the international scene. USA also argued that liberal democracies are more peaceful (Plappert, 2010). The decision to invade Iraq was influenced by Neo conservatives in US government who argued that democracies are unlikely to engage in civil war or internal conflicts. It was argued that democracies are more peaceful because a government that is answerable directly to the people who often feel the outcomes of warfare (Heinze, 2009) makes war decisions. They also argue that people in democracies are risk averse and are unlikely to support war initiation. The proponents of the invasion also argued that democratic system fosters ethnic moderation, isolates extremists and ensures peaceful co-existence of communities. It was based on this that American and Briton policy makers believed that creation of democracy in Iraq could bring about regional and international security. However, critics of this school of thought argue that just like other governments, democracies can be violent. For instance, these critics point out that nuclear bomb was first deployed by a democratic state against another and that USA and Britain which are democratic states are the ones, which initiated war against Iraq (McWhinney, 2004). It was also argued that liberal democratic states are peaceful to other liberal democracies because a complex interconnection is created between them making war unthinkable since it would damage societies and individuals raised to transcend the borders of the country (Jaramillo, 2009). However, this argument is problematic in the case of Iraq in that by democratizing Iraq, it will be the only democratic state within undemocratic states (Plappert, 2010). This would be dangerous because it has been argued that liberalism is a failure in foreign policy guidance outside the liberal world since conflicts might arise between liberal and non-liberal communities. Invading Iraq in order to impose liberal democracy was unlikely to succeed since liberal democracy is known to emanate from below rather than being imposed on a country by another nation (Heinze, 2009). Thus, the campaigns by western countries in Middle East to bring about democracy are seen as a form of imperialism and hence promoting hatred for western countries (McWhinney, 2004). Moreover, it is argued that democratization process is often dangerous since transition to democracy results in conflict and instability as witnessed by the increased conflicts and insurgency in Iraq. Proponents of invasion of Iraq believed that establishment of democracy in Iraq would result in a peaceful and stable region. It was argued by proponents that imposition of democracy on Iraq would make it a beacon of democracy in the region and reduce interstate antagonism. Contrary to this belief, the objective has faced many challenges. Critics argue that Iraq is unlikely to develop into a democratic state since it lacks preconditions for democratic development as exemplified by fractured Iraq society (Heinze, 2009). The country also lacks a cohesive unifying identity needed for democratic development. In addition, the democratization process is likely to be interfered with by Iranian and Turkish meddling. Moreover, Iraq lacks a well-structured political leadership that is crucial for democratic development (McWhinney, 2004). Lack of historical democracy in the country is another challenge that is likely to hinder democratization process. Thus, the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about democracy and hence stability in the region is not justified as a reason for USA and Britain to engage in war with Iraq. Although some theorists argue that democracy can spread to neighbouring countries, others disagree with this view. Some theorists argue that more democratic states in a region are likely to influence undemocratic states to democratize (Tucker, 2010). Thus it was argued that democratization of Iraq would spill over to undemocratic neighbouring states. However, to do so democratic Iraq need to a beacon reflects strong democratic institutions (Heinze, 2009). If this is not the case, then Iraq would be prone to conflicts and to war with neighbouring states. Statistical studies have indicated that imposed democracy is not likely to spread to neighbouring states and as such strong democratic institutions in Iraq are unlikely to spread to neighbouring states (Plappert, 2010). Moreover, Iraq is not likely to develop strong democratic institution because of its ethnic and religious conflicts in addition to lack of historical democratic traditions (Jaramillo, 2009). Moreover, the hostility of states that neighbour Iraq and the impact of US occupation bare unlikely to propel Iraq to establish strong democratic institutions that can influence neighbouring states to democratize (McWhinney, 2004). Thus, invading Iraq to create a beacon of bringing democracy in the region was unjustified since the democratization of Iraq is not likely to attain this objective. However, the true results of the democratization process are yet to be seen as though there have been setbacks and challenges, Iraq has had successful democratic elections since the invasion, but time may be the only test of whether democracy will hold in Iraq and whether regional democratization and peace will follow. Another aim of invading Iraq was for humanitarian purposes (Tucker, 2010). Saddam was known to be an oppressive and a tyrannical dictator who was involved in murdering thousands of his on people in addition to ruling them with oppression and force. Thus democratization process was aimed at removing Saddam’s regime and replacing it with a government that was more liberal. Although the war succeeded to remove a tyranny from power, the war has claimed more lives than were claimed by Saddam regime (Heinze, 2009). It is argued that things are far worse than before the war. It is argued that Saddam managed to maintain law and order in the country and that no gross levels of violence and sectarian violence were experienced during his time as being witnessed now (Plappert, 2010). Moreover, it is argued that the living standards of Iraq people has deteriorated as compared to what used to be prior to the invasion since electricity is limited, drinking water is contaminated, sanitation is poor and poor healthy facilities (McWhinney, 2004)s. Thus, the humanitarian reasons posited for toppling Saddam do not hold water because more people are suffering because of the war than ever before (Tucker, 2010). Therefore, invading Iraq for humanitarian purpose was unjustified since the living standards of Iraq people has deteriorated in addition many of them dying during the war (Shah, 2008). Iraq was also invaded in order to improve civil rights because of toppling an oppressive regime. However, this is yet to be seen. It has been pointed out that Iraq women still face serious setbacks to their liberty, civil and human rights (Jaramillo, 2009). The USA government refused to back quotas to allow female employment and involvement in politics. There has been a decline in women employment in Iraq since invasion due to security reasons. Privatization has also seen women face disproportionate job loss (Plappert, 2010). Moreover, t6he removal of Saddam from power has seen increased oppression of women in Iraq due to harassment and assault by Islamic militia (McWhinney, 2004). Many women are being killed for not wearing headscarves and many of women miss education due to fear propagated b y the war. Thus, invasion of Iraq to improve civil rights is not justified since it has worsened things in Iraq. It is also argued that Iraq was invaded in order to procure the second largest oil reserves in the world. This objective was attained when the UN granted US and UK to occupy authority control over oil expenditures in Iraq (Heinze, 2009). This reason has been criticized for being commercial oriented rather than helping Iraq people (Tucker, 2010). Moreover, it has been argued that the war has benefited authoritarian states in the region. Thus it was unethical and unjust for US and UK to invade Iraq in order to procure its oil reserves. Given that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam had no links to al Qaeda it was unjust for US and UK to invade Iraq. It was also uncalled for US and UK to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons and yet the consequences of the war have resulted in the worsening of humanitarian conditions in the country than ever before. Moreover, inability of US and UK to resolve conflicts within Iraq are an indication that invasion of Iraq was unjustified based on bringing about peace in Iraq and the region at large. Moreover, aiming to democratize Iraq in order to allow democratization of neighbouring states was unjustified because the undemocratic states in the region are still undemocratic. Furthermore, one of the aims of the invasion was to improve international and regional security something that has not been attained by the war but rather worsened security issues. This is because anti-American sentiments have increased and Iran has been freed from a long-term enemy and as such has created instability in a regional power balance. Thus the invasion of Iraq was not a just war. References Bonn, S., and Welch, M. 2010. Mass deception: moral panic and the U.S. war on Iraq. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press Heinze, E. 2009. Waging humanitarian war: the ethics, law, and politics of humanitarian intervention. London: SUNY Press Jaramillo, D. 2009. Ugly war, pretty package: how CNN and Fox News made the invasion of Iraq high concept. Indiana: Indiana University Press McWhinney, E. 2004. The September 11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq in contemporary international law: opinions on the emerging new world order system. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Plappert, S. 2010. Why Did the USA Invade Iraq?: An Answer with References to the Political, Economic and Ideological Interests/purpose of the US, Ignoring the Reasons Stated by the Bush Administration and the Blair Government. Jakarta: GRIN Verlag Tucker, S. 2010. The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts, Volume 1. London: ABC-CLIO Shah, N. 2008. Self-defence in Islamic and international law: assessing Al-Qaeda and the invasion of Iraq. Palgrave: Palgrave MacMillan Read More

Thus, America is more unsecure that before the war (Heinze, 2009). Thus, based on weapons of mass destruction and security reasons, America was not justified to lead an invasion in Iraq since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and since Saddam posed no security threats to US. Another reason put forward to justify the war was democratization of Iraq (Bonn and Welch, 2010). USA believed that dictatorial and undemocratic regimes created enabling conditions for growth of terror gangs and is more likely to engage in war and to create conflicts and tensions in the international scene.

USA also argued that liberal democracies are more peaceful (Plappert, 2010). The decision to invade Iraq was influenced by Neo conservatives in US government who argued that democracies are unlikely to engage in civil war or internal conflicts. It was argued that democracies are more peaceful because a government that is answerable directly to the people who often feel the outcomes of warfare (Heinze, 2009) makes war decisions. They also argue that people in democracies are risk averse and are unlikely to support war initiation.

The proponents of the invasion also argued that democratic system fosters ethnic moderation, isolates extremists and ensures peaceful co-existence of communities. It was based on this that American and Briton policy makers believed that creation of democracy in Iraq could bring about regional and international security. However, critics of this school of thought argue that just like other governments, democracies can be violent. For instance, these critics point out that nuclear bomb was first deployed by a democratic state against another and that USA and Britain which are democratic states are the ones, which initiated war against Iraq (McWhinney, 2004).

It was also argued that liberal democratic states are peaceful to other liberal democracies because a complex interconnection is created between them making war unthinkable since it would damage societies and individuals raised to transcend the borders of the country (Jaramillo, 2009). However, this argument is problematic in the case of Iraq in that by democratizing Iraq, it will be the only democratic state within undemocratic states (Plappert, 2010). This would be dangerous because it has been argued that liberalism is a failure in foreign policy guidance outside the liberal world since conflicts might arise between liberal and non-liberal communities.

Invading Iraq in order to impose liberal democracy was unlikely to succeed since liberal democracy is known to emanate from below rather than being imposed on a country by another nation (Heinze, 2009). Thus, the campaigns by western countries in Middle East to bring about democracy are seen as a form of imperialism and hence promoting hatred for western countries (McWhinney, 2004). Moreover, it is argued that democratization process is often dangerous since transition to democracy results in conflict and instability as witnessed by the increased conflicts and insurgency in Iraq.

Proponents of invasion of Iraq believed that establishment of democracy in Iraq would result in a peaceful and stable region. It was argued by proponents that imposition of democracy on Iraq would make it a beacon of democracy in the region and reduce interstate antagonism. Contrary to this belief, the objective has faced many challenges. Critics argue that Iraq is unlikely to develop into a democratic state since it lacks preconditions for democratic development as exemplified by fractured Iraq society (Heinze, 2009).

The country also lacks a cohesive unifying identity needed for democratic development. In addition, the democratization process is likely to be interfered with by Iranian and Turkish meddling. Moreover, Iraq lacks a well-structured political leadership that is crucial for democratic development (McWhinney, 2004). Lack of historical democracy in the country is another challenge that is likely to hinder democratization process.

Read More