Starting the war with Iraq in 2003 by George w. Bush was not justified under the main arguments regarding Saddam Hussein and his endangerment to US national security as well as the security of the Iran people and people of surrounding areas. Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction which Bush and his administration felt posed an immediate threat to the united states as well as other allies, however according to the just war theory a war is only justified to be started if it is in self-defense. By starting the war; Bush was seeking to disarm and alieve the nuclear/ chemical threat from the world but the reality was that Iraq had not attacked the United States. This is taking a utilitarian perspective as well as a consequentialist view towards the war. These will be the normative principles I am relying on to explain that the starting of the war was unjustified.
A consequentialist view towards any moral dilemma refers back to the idea that we as a country and as individuals have a duty to prevent bad things from happening to others as long as it is not of significant moral compromise to ourselves*. It is essentially weighing the consequences of the war both good and bad and evaluating if the good is able to outweigh the bad. Consequences that would matter in this case would be the death toll of citizens, greater endangerment of the US, its allies, and the middle east. The utilitarian view on the other hand weighs the consequences looked at in the consequentialist theory and looks at them on a case by case basis. It also factors the outcomes on a scale of favorability and if the outcomes are favorable/ more beneficial to a larger number of people*. Outcomes of the war which would be favorable to the most people are optimal according to Mills greatest happiness principle which I am accepting in this regard.
One ever-more prevalent consequence of the war is the death toll. With the main goal of the war being attempting to apprehend Saddam Hussein from his horrible dictatorship over Iraq, this was accomplished. However, after he was removed from power, Iraq wasn’t able to take hold of the democracy model the United States wanted it to be for the rest of the middle east. Instead there were at least 150,000 civilians that died, 4,500 American troops killed, and millions of Iraqis displaced (CNN 2015). Committing this many people to death is not responsible or appropriate because the war was not just to begin with as reasonably foreseeable civilian deaths are not permissible*. But these are also almost certain in a war. Even with American support of funding and materials, the country, Iraq, was not able to grab hold of the democracy model. What resulted was largely a humanitarian tragedy. The loss of so many American lives as well as Iraqi lives outweigh any benefit the war had in this region specifically.
Ultimately the United States sought to help Iraq overcome its state of dictatorship from Saddam Hussein using this to attempt to justify the principle of the just war theory relating to the reestablishment of peace, in this case specifically in the middle east. With the harsh tensions in the middle east thriving it was thought by the Bush administration that if there could be a strong governmental model for the region, i.e. Iraq, that the middle east could break out of its ways and thrive on its own. This would have brought about an overall state of happiness which ultimately is favorable by a utilitarian standpoint. However, this is not what happened and it left people in a bad situation again even despite the efforts. There was no reasonable reason to believe that Iraq would be able to support a democratic way of life given its history of oppression, inequality of citizens, and its lack of a sense of nationhood by the countries at its borders (Forbes 2014). This brought about unhappiness for the Iraqis as well as Americans as a result of displacement and the death toll making the war unfavorable and caused more harm than good according to the “greatest happiness principle” discussed by Mill.
The war was also a matter of trying to protect United States national security which is one of the just war theories for justifying a war. It was thought previously that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction including chemical warfare, biological, and nuclear. Once the US invaded Iraq though, no weapons of mass destruction were to be found (Falk 2003). This meant the threats to the United States from Al Qaeda cannot be regarded as enough proof to show that Iraq has shown aggressions or threats toward the united states. Thus concluding the united states did not have compelling enough evidence to justify a war as senator Kennedy stated in his 2002 speech “the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary” (Kennedy 2002).
Another application of the just war theory that was not met was that no united states territory had been seized by the Iraqis. Using 9/11 as a justification for an attack on United states soil is more so a matter of interest due to tensions running high. The acts of terror conducted towards the United States were based from Afghanistan as well as the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Even though this was not directly an action of terror from Iraq, it led to the US having a more detailed eye toward the country and the remainder of the region (Yoo 2003). With so much pressure on president Bush to have a response to 9/11 he acted out of hastiness as well as the supporters of the war did. It was found that after the war had been started “most Americans concluded the US should have avoided it.” (CBS News 2013). The just war theory states that a war is just if it has a just cause such as the seizure of domestic land.
The last resort aspect of the theory is one many pro-war on Iraq individuals take in defense of the war. According to the just war theory, a war should only be started in the event it is a last resort in the argument of peace over war*. The Bush administration backs it decision to invade Iraq because it took this as a “last resort” after Saddam Hussein refused to comply with its UN obligations. It was stated by the UN that if they did not comply they would face the consequences of not (S.C. Res). Hussein was not the only one to reap the consequences of war though. This to me seems as though the decision to go to war remained a choice and not inevitable because we could find no other course of action to take against the matter. The united states failed to take other options in to account before taking the war route and because there was no immediate threat to national security that could be accurately and convincingly proven war was unjust in this instance as well. Other options that could have been taken include applying a more consistent pressure onto the regime of Hussein with our military instead of a direct strike against Hussein’s reign which more directly endangered the united states or proceeded to continue with negotiations. Even bad options that could have been taken out shine the option of going to war.
The United States did meet some of the criterion in the just war theory, but a majority should be met in order to solidly justify starting a war. For example, the united states did have reason to believe there was a reasonable probability of success. Our military had such strong advances that attacks were able to be made even when the groups would attempt to move in unideal conditions such as a sandstorm or during the night. With this in mind we were also able to aim our strikes at specific locations with GPS missiles and avoid others that were in blackout zones such as schools, hospitals, or other areas that could be directly related to civilian life (Kahl). This argument alone though cannot be used to justify the war as it is one of the only criterion met via the principles of the just war theory.
Overall it can be seen using the consequentialist model of thought as well as the utilitarian model of thought that the US war invading Iraq in 2003 was not justified. The just war theory provides a list of principles which should be considered in the event of considering going to war. The United States, in the case of this war, fails to meet the criterion for many of these principles and the ones which it does meet cannot be used as evidence enough to justify this happening. It fails to meet a majority of the principles such as civilian casualties, seizure of land, reestablishment of peace, the protection of national security, and the last resort option. It is for these reasons I believe the war against Iraq to be unjustifiable.
Works Cited:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/zakaria-iraq-war-lessons/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/06/20/war-without-end-why-iraq-can-never-be-a-stable-democracy/#7f9784935e7c
Richard A. Falk, What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?, 97 THE AMER. JOURNAL OF INT’L LAW (2003).
Edward Kennedy, “Eliminating the Threat, The Right Course of Action for Disarming Iraq, Combating Terrorism, Protecting the Homeland, and Stabilizing the Middle East,” Speech September 2002
John Yoo, International Law and the War in Iraq, 97 THE AMER. JOURNAL OF INT’L LAW 564 (2003)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-years-later-the-iraq-wars-lasting-impact-on-us-politics/
S.C. Res. 1137, 814, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3188th mtg. at 4, U.N. Doc. S/RES/814 (1997)
Colin H. Kahl, In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and U.S. Conduct in Iraq, 32 INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 7–46 (2007).