Just War Theory: The United States And The Iraq War

According to James Pattison, just war theory covers many conditions and splits itself into two categories: one of them is jus ad bellum, which

Protestors would stand outside of the White House and chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” in reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ever-seeming inability to tackle what was beginning to seem like a crisis. By the summer of 1967, fewer than 50 percent of polled citizens (US) said they supported the president’s conduct of the war. This negative view continued until the conflicts end, and those that partook in the fighting were shunned by the society they ultimately fought to protect. Saint Thomas Aquinas (b. 1225 AD) established a series of principals titled ‘the Theory of Aggression’ in his book ‘Summa Theologicae’ that can be placed adjacent to every conflict within Western history, serving to imbue the covenant of warfare in its entirety.

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

The date was March 19, 2003, people sat beside their television sets and radios to listen to U.S. President, George W. Bush, announce, “At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger” (“War in Iraq Begins,” 2003). Bush and his advisor’s actions were based on the information that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was building weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq War is a “just” war because it was a reasonable response with a moral purpose.

According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other

In conclusion, the Iraq war was a pointless and unjust war. The Iraq Gulf war in 2003 did not meet the just war theory. Secondly, Virginia Held explained that there is no difference between war and terrorism. It does not matter if the war is just or unjust war and terrorism attacks are against the law. During war and terrorist attacks there are always civilian casualties. One casualty is to many.

Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing (Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of discrimination

The Vietnamese was very detrimental because several people died. Indeed, the Just War Wage Policies (JWPs) were famous with the Vietnam War of 1961-64. Critically, the JWPs might fail in certain war cases owing to several challenges such as terrorism, lethal weapons, and genocide issues, which render this policy ineffective. Therefore, it is important to re-think whether this policy was actually important in the Vietnam war, and through such an analysis, the scholars of history might be in a position to advise policy makers to either adopt or reject this war strategy. The Just Wage War Policy can be analyzed under different contexts. First, it is important to argue that the policy constitutes ‘jus ad bellum’, which justifies the underlying principles and reasons of taking the war advances.

In the just war tradition, war was thought to be part of the moral world but had to meet certain criteria to be just. “The war had to create peace to protect human dignity and rights” (Himes, p. 85). There are seven points listed for the criteria for going to war. The first listed is making sure the war has a just cause. This means that there is a specific problem that needs to be fixed, or there is a reasonable defensive reason. A competent authority person, or a person of authority, needs to make decisions based on achieving and maintaining the common good. The cause of war has to be declared by a legitimate body of authority (Himes, p. 86).

According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be

In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just

The United States committed war crimes in the war against Iraq because of the intrusion of people’s rights. Crimes against humanity consist of murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against civilization before or during war. War crimes are actions carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war. Crimes against humanity have existed and customary international law for over half a century and are also evidenced in prosecution before some national courts (Bassiouni 1).

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had once been a great medieval Christian theologian. He had a deep knowledge and understanding with theological and ethical questions regarding warfare among the Christian states. Reflecting on his writings one will gain their own understanding of when is it necessary for war to be justly waged. According to the Christian scripture, the Bible, it states in Matthew 26:52, “All who draw the sword will die by the sword.” In reflecting on that scripture, one could say that, every kind of war would then be unlawful and a sin. Yet, Augustine interpreted and taught that in order for a war to be just, there is three required items. The first is there needs to be authority and command when

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties