Introduction and Thesis Statement
St. Aquinas believes that way is sinful and waging war is unjust. He argues that “those who take to sword will die by the sword.” According to him, war is a detriment of peace and therefore a sinful endeavor. However, St. Augustine explains the validity and the justifiability of war. He believes that war, to some extent, is just and necessary (White 269). However, for a war to be just, it has to follow three conditions. A just was must that that has been sanctioned by the highest authority. It will be unjust to wage war at a personal level without the sanction from the highest ranking authority because an individual has no right to call the troupes together for his personal gain. Secondly, the war should be waged for a just course. In other words, those who are attacked must have done something worth attacking. Thirdly, the necessity of attacking a country should be with rightful intention. It should be aimed and achieving the greater good (Tolstoy 218).
The war on Iraq did not abide by any of the three necessities by St. Augustine. The war was unjust and uncalled for. First, the war did not follow the requirements of the United Nations which is the most superior organization guiding the relationship between countries. Secondly, the war was falsely based on the fact that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, something which was letter realized was a wrong intel, or maybe a mere hoax (White 153). They also attacked Iraq basing on a theory that the Ba’athist regime was supporting al-Qaeda, a theory that was falsified stating that Iran had no relations with the al-Qaeda. Thirdly, the war was waged for wrong intentions. Several schools of thoughts believe that United States attacked Iraq for its selfish endeavors. They reacted to the Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, and they did not want Iraq to take control of Kuwait due to its large oil reserve (Klare 129). It is therefore rightful to say that the war on Iraq was unjust and should have not happened in the first place if the United States were to abide by the ethics of war.
The History of War on Iraq
On March, 2003, the United States military and other militaries from the allied nation invaded Iraq. After a period of 27 days, the U S forces occupied Baghdad, overthrowing the Ba’athist regime (Jakobsen 665). On December 13th of the same year, Saddam Hussein was capture in in a cellar at the outskirt of Tikrit. The war on Iraq started brooding after the Gulf War in 1991. After the Gulf war, all the states within the Persian Gulf were obliged by the United Nations to get rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction. The United Nations Special forces organized a search in the middle east countries to ensure that these countries do not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. In December 1998, the Ba’athist regime threw away the inspectors creating a fracas between Iraq and the United Nation (Jakobsen 673). This was because the inspectors were reaching the Iraq’s sensitive sites such as the presidential palace. The Iraq government could not allow such kind of “intimidation” hence they threw away the inspectors. In response, the United Nations carried an invasion called the Operation Desert Fox where they bombed numerous Iraqi military camps. The aim of this operation was to destabilize Iraq’s ability to produce and store Weapons of Mass Destruction. At this point, the United Nation Security Council passed Resolution 1441 against the Iraq government. However, this was not a resolution to invade Iraq, neither was it a resolution to overthrow the Ba’athist regime.
The United States’ intention with the Ba’athist regime was quite different. After the Gulf War, the United States believed that the economic sanction on Iraq and the declaring Iraq a no flight zone will prompt for an opposition and rebellion that will lead to a coup to oust the Ba’athist regime. The U.N policy was not to change the regime, however, the United States was interested in the regime change. During the regime of Clinton and the first Bush, they had thought of ways of supporting a coup that will overthrow the Ba’athist regime. The Bush government authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to find a way of toppling Saddam (Jakobsen 701). President Bill Clinton, in 1998, assented to a law that authorized 97 million US Dollar assistance to the opposition military so that they can have an upper hand in toppling Saddam. They claimed that their aim was to remove the Ba’athist regime headed by Saddam so as to “bring democracy” to the people of Iraq. The truth is that the war did not bring any democracy but just pain to the citizens of Iraq. It is believed that the aim of the US government was to stop Iraq from conquering and ruling Kuwait. Kuwait, being a great supplier of oil, the United States wanted to find a way of controlling its resources, but that would not be possible with the Iraq government in the picture (Klare 129).
The Republican Government headed by George W. Bush claimed that their aim is to liberate and affect freedom among the oppressed citizens; this is the major American foreign policy. The Bush government saw it that it was not necessary to involve the United nation. They believe that the UN should only be involved when the United States cannot solve the problem by itself, or when they believe that the United Nation will support their personal endeavors. On September 11, 2001, the bombing by the al-Qaeda prompted a strong shift on the US policy. They started what is called the Global War on Terrorism (Hinnebusch 213). They attacked Afghanistan in October 2001 to apprehend and neutralize the al-Qaeda.
After the September 11 attack, the United States found a new accusation against the Iraqi government. In addition to manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq was also accused of harboring terrorists. They were accused of supporting the al-Qaeda operations in the western world. They were also accused of providing the al-Qaeda members with refuge after running from the Afghanistan crack-down. The United State Government now had all the reasonable causes to invade Iraq. In 2002, the senate and the congress passed a law that approved for the use of force against the Iraqi government. President Bush declared a war without authorization from the United Nations Security Council (Hinnebusch 221). They used their authority as the super power and revoked their so called foreign policy. With the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and the State Department, the US president acquired the full charge of the Iraqi situation. The US government did not bother to obtain the authorization from the United Nations Security Council.
When United States invaded Iraq on 2003, it was just one of their habit of the regime change. The United State is known for using mainly two tactics in regime change. They may use the direct involvement where they deploy the military to the respective country. They can also use the Central Intelligence Agency to organize a coup so that the regime can be overthrown without their direct involvement. George W. Bush, who was then the president of the United States, and Tony Blair who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom convinced the public that their main reason for invading Iraq was because Iraq is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also said that they believed that the Ba’athist regime was, in a way supporting terrorists. When the al-Qaeda bombed the Twins Towers in September 11, the US Government alleged that Saddam Husain was harboring the al-Qaeda members (Hinnebusch 224). This may not be the truth because the result produced by WikiLeaks shown that the main reason for the war was to secure Kuwait. The neoconservatives have developed obsession with Iraq. They knew that with Saddam in power, their ability to control Kuwait, which had a very large reserve of oil, will be curtailed. This is why the Iraq invasion took place immediately after Saddam had attacked Kuwait. The Kuwait invasion prompted Bush to hold a meeting with United Kingdom and other European countries so as to find a way of ousting Saddam and the Ba’athist regime.
Another accusation towards the Iraq government was that the Ba’athist regime was a dictatorship. The government was accused of oppressing the Iraqi people. What draws attention is that, by then, the Filipino government was more of a dictatorship than the Iraq government. They, however, did not do anything to overthrow Ferdinand Marcos (Walzer 29). The answer can be simple, the US Government had no economic interest with Filipino. The economic interest with the Iraq government was to find a way of opening the Middle East and specifically the Persian Gulf Energy Resources. The only barrier to this endeavor was the Iraqi Government and the Ba’athist regime. Saddam was so adamant and could not easily be dissuaded by the western power. They, therefore knew that the Saddam regime will cause a halt to the flow of oil. By taking care of Saddam and his regime, there will be a free flow of oil in the Middle East. This will result to Anglo-American Oil Conglomerates making unimaginably huge profits in the process.
In 19th March, 2003, the military from the United States of America, Australia, the United Kingdom, Poland and Spain invaded Iraq. It took 21 day of intensive military attack before Baghdad was taken ((Fisher, & Biggar 689). By 9th April 2003 the Ba’athist regime was overthrown and Saddam Hussein went hiding. On December 13th of the same year, Saddam Hussein was capture in in a cellar at the outskirt of Tikrit, his own hometown ((Walzer 36). Saddam did not resist arrest as was reported by one of the special forces that apprehended him. In 2004, the United States Government then imposed a temporary government in Iraq; the government that they could easily manipulate. Even after the regime change, the United States military maintained its presence in Iraq for eight more years. In 2004, the Obama Government decide to recall back their troops. The war alone, resulted to over 8,000 civilian casualties. The actual statistics cannot be easily obtained because, by then, there was no well-functioning government in Iraq. There were several other inhuman activities that were caused by the US military. In 2008, a video was released of how some of the US military were mishandling the civilians.
Even before the secretary for United Nation Security Council could deliver their report on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in 5th February, 2003, the US Government had already deployed 62,000 troops to Iraq. This was an addition to the 43,000 which was had already been deployed on January 2003 (Fisher, & Biggar 689). In other words, it can be said that the US Government had their own agenda in invading the Iraqi people. There was no enough evidence to show that Iraq poses an international security threat. A letter research revealed that Iraq had no weapon of mass destruction, neither did they had any association with the al-Qaeda. After the release of the result, Bush claimed that he acted on a wrong intelligence. The Question is whether the US action was based on the wrong intelligence or an intention to better their own gains. Even after realizing that the intelligence was flawed, the presence of the US military continued to exist in Iraq for several more years. The US government claimed that they were liberating Iraq. The truth is that Iraq suffered even a greater deal after the military invasion. More than 8,000 people died and several lost their homes and properties in the name of liberalization.
Ethical Issues and the Justifiability of the Iraq War
Did the US President have a Legitimate Authority to Invade Iraq?
The president of the United States in the commander-in-chief of the US forces. However, to undertake foreign policies such as invading Iraq, he requires the authorization from the senate and the congress. After the September 11 attack, the congress granted the president the authority to punish the terrorists and their sponsors (Perry). Invading Iraq was in the basis of the fact that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. However, so far, there has never been a plausible evidence to show that Saddam and his government had any relationship with the al-Qaeda. The neighboring countries such as Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia opposed the invasion (Perry). The US Government also did not seek the Authority from the United Nation Security Council. In other words, the United States Government did not have any authority to invade Iraq. According to St. Augustine, war can only be justified if it is sanctioned by the highest ranking authority. In this case, the highest ranking authority was the United Nation Security Council, which the US did not seek approval from before invading Iraq. This is an evidence that the war on Iraq was not justified.
Was there a Sufficient Moral Reason to Invade Iraq?
The primary reason why Iraq was invaded was due to the claim that Iraq was possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was evident when the Saddam Hussein government attacked the Kurdish population and the Iranian troop with the chemical weapon. It was also believed that Iraq was in possession of biological weapons. Iraq also threatened that they were developing nuclear weapons which they are intending to use against the Israelites (Perry). In 1991, the United Nation sanctioned the Gulf War. At the end of the war, there was an agreement that all Weapons of Mass Destruction should be inspected and dismantled. The UN inspectors in Iraq were accused of reaching very sensitive sites such as the presidential palace. Being that Iraq could not entertain such intimidations, they threw away the inspectors. As a result, the United nations imposed sanction in Iraq as they furthered their research on the availability of these weapons in Iraq (Perry).
Iraq was also accused of harboring terrorists. They believed that the Ba’athist regime mas funding and training terrorists. However, it was not only Iraq which was accused of training and sponsoring terrorists; even the Syrian and the Iranian Governments were accused of the same allegation. The question is why they did not bother to invade Iran and Syria. When the Twin Towers ware bombed by the al-Qaeda in September 11, 2001, the US Government started a global war against terrorism. After invading Afghanistan in December 2001, they came into a conclusion to invade Iraq. There was no tangible evidence that Iraq was associated with al-Qaida, neither was there any tangible evidence that Iraq was in possession of any weapon of mass destruction. The US Government did not wait for further investigation to ascertain these allegations. They collaborated with other countries such as England and Invaded Iraq. The truth which later came after proper investigation was that there was no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq; neither was there any relationship between al-Qaeda and the Ba’athist regime. This is an indication that there was no sufficient moral justification to invade Iraq.
Was there a Better Option than War?
The war was primarily based on the allegations which were not founded on any fact or evidence. A further investigation indicated that Iraq was not in possession of any weapon of mass destruction. Saddam said that he will attack Israel using nuclear weapon. These were empty threats which Saddam used to gain attention and to scare away his enemies. After sending away the UN inspectors, economic sanction was posed on Iraq. Iraq air space was also declared insecure (Fisher, & Biggar 701). These punishments were enough to curtail the operations of the Ba’athist regime as the United Nation Security Council undertakes its investigation. There was no need to rush into warring with Iraq when there was no sufficient intelligence to do so. After the September 11 attack, the Iraq was accused of harboring the al-Qaeda terror group, an allegation that has never found any proof. Economic sanction and declaration of Iraq as no flight zone was a punishment enough for the allegations which were founded in no truth. It is, therefore, evident that military invasion on Iraq was unjustified and unethical.
Works sited
Fisher, David, and Nigel Biggar. "Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya*." International Affairs 87.3 (2011): 687-707.
Hinnebusch, Raymond. "The US Invasion of Iraq: explanations and implications." Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 16.3 (2007): 209-228.
Jakobsen, Tor G., and Jo Jakobsen. "The Game: A Rational Actor Approach to the US-led Invasion of Iraq, 2003." Strategic Analysis 33.5 (2009): 664-674.
Klare, Michael T. "For oil and empire? Rethinking war with Iraq." Current History 102.662 (2003): 129.
Perry, David. "Can an Invasion of Iraq Be Justified Ethically?" Earthlink. N.p., 19 Aug. 2005. Web. 15 May 2016.
Tolstoy, Leo. War and peace. Vol. 525. Dolce Stil Publishing, 2014.
Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books, 2015.
White, Craig M. Iraq: The Moral Reckoning. Lexington Books, 2010.
