The United States Attack on Irak in 2003

1141 Words Jan 26th, 2018 5 Pages
The question of whether this action is a case of justified anticipatory self-defense or not is answered by clearly understanding the definition of “anticipatory self-defense”. Anticipatory self-defense basically says that if you have a good reason to believe that someone is going to harm you in a particular way, you can act first. The proper definition would have two conditions; “There is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed target has the ability to strike a devastating blow” and “There is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed target has the inclination to strike a devastating blow”. That being said, the decision to go to war with Iraq was a decision based upon dishonesty and a one-sided perspective. Therefore, U.S does not qualify to call it a case of justified anticipatory self-defense so; it was not a last resort as it had other less violent options. There are several reasons as to why I believe it was a very weak case. Firstly, U.S made mistakes that led to inaccurate conclusions that Iraq obtained weapons of mass destruction. These mistakes were not honest mistakes but rather an intentional manipulation by the government. The primary reason to invade Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who is believed (by U.S officials) to pose future threats to the U.S as he obtains WMD. However, the UN under Hans Blix who had access to all the government buildings had a team working in the grounds of Iraq…