The Role Of Justification Of The War In Iraq

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

There are many questions surrounding the topic of war. Should we fight? How do we win? Why are we fighting? The most debatable question of all is if the war is considered just.

The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The

Nevertheless, I fully agree with the points that John Farley makes in his article proving that going to war in Iraq was not justified.

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word “sacrifice” means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were “sacrificed” as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S.

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

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

From the various points and examples given, it is clear the war is unjustified in many ways as it involves mass killings and is unethical, it destroys economies, having an impact on people and the country physically, and it causes great harm to a society, especially children. However, it can also be justified, only under very strict circumstances where it can prove to be

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

While there are no main criteria, there are a few that the Just War Doctrine follows. The criteria for using military force under Just War Doctrine follows three sections with sub-categories following them. Those three categories are jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war), jus in bello (how combatants must act), and jus post bellum (how war must be terminated). Jus ad bellum encompasses just cause, legitimate authority, formal declaration, among other reasons that justify going to war. Jus in bello refers to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), proportionality, and no atrocious weapons. Jus post bellum is about public declaration and authority and the ways in which wars should end.