Position Paper: Iraq War and Just War Theory Essay

Thesis The state of state of fight childbed in Iraq that is currently being led by the get together States fails to meet some(prenominal) of the qualifications of a good contendfare fartheste as laid a elan in the that contend guess, so one can take a plaza that the effort is un safe. I will argue that the United States not only disregarded some of the conditions of the theory, but that we actually broke most of the conditions which would be required in tell a start for a war effort to be deemed just. When the United States chose to go to war in Iraq, the international fallout hounding the decision was both dramatic and decisive. There was outcry from other countries who described the United States war effort as being unjust. Though in that location are many dubious ways to look at the justness of the war, the position that the war is unjust can be supported by the findings in the on the button War Theory.The war effort in Iraq that is currently being led by the Un ited States fails to meet many of the qualifications of a just war as laid out in the Just War Theory, so one can take a position that the effort is unjust. I will argue that the United States not only disregarded some of the conditions of the theory, but that we actually broke most of the conditions which would be required in order for a war effort to be deemed just. The Just War Theory itself is not a document that leaves anything to chance. In fact, it is not ambiguous at all in the way that it defines a just war effort. Those who formulated the philosophy left no stone unturned. Instead, they were sure to include a expatiateed basis for understanding that was broken into ii broad components, with further explanation given in each section. The first condition for a just war that must be met is known as Jus ad bellum, which is the first set of criteria documented to determine if a war is just or not.According to the actual literature of the Just War Theory, this section Assesse s the reasons for war and establishes the set of criteria we mathematical function for determining whether or not a disassembleicular war is legitimate (Just War Theory). Included in this part of the Just War Theory are six sub-headings, including just cause, just intentions, legitimate authority, publicly carryd, defy resort, and reasonable cost. Together, these things help create a clearer picture of whether or not a war cause can be justified by those who wage war. The United States war in Iraq can be justified under the just cause part of Jus ad bellum, but in order for a war to be just, it must be able to pass all of the segments of this theory. Whether the war in Iraq fails first is in its intentions. According to this portion of the Just War Theory, Just intentions demand that war should always aim for peace and that any war must be limited to its stated aim (Just War Theory). In the solecism of the United States, this has not been the case. The cause at hand was just be cause it sought to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Hussein. Once that dictator was ejected, the war effort did not stop, though.Instead, it has turned into an rail line that has turned the United States into a conquering imperialistic nation. The real intentions of the war are hidden and are much more complicated that what meets the eye. The desire for control of oil and the semipolitical posturing in the Middle East are among those reasons. According to Stephen Jendraszak of the Ball State Daily News, Our received motivation is oil, just as it has been in the past. After Sept. 11, the administration was stunned by the amount of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks (Jendraszak). The third condition of this part of the Just War Theory was also violated. This deals with the authority to make war as an American nation. According to the Constitution of the United States, U.S. Congress has the power To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make ru les concerning captures on land and water (U.S. Constitution). Congress has yet to declare war in this authority, meaning that the U.S. led occupation is not just according to the theory. The Just War Theory also demands that the declaration of war be a public one. Since no declaration was made, there was obviously no public announcement of that decision. An interesting part of the Just War Theory is section e of the first part, where it discusses the idea of a last resort. In this case, the United States tried some diplomacy, but they did not exhaust all of their options. In fact, the U.S. government did much to get in the way of good diplomacy in this case. Instead of allowing United Nations led inspectors to look over the Iraqi grounds, the U.S. put undue pressure on the Iraqi government. In fact, the United Nations went so far as to pass U.N.Resolution 1441, which states that the U.N. is Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictio ns with its obligations under dissolvent 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance (U.N Resolution 1441). It was the United States lack of patience in letting this resolution converge out that is a primary reason why the war should be deemed, unjust. In addition to those things, I take the position that the U.S. had no plea for going to war based upon article f of the Just War Theory. This is the part of the theory that weighs the costs of going to war once morest the cost of allowing the current situation to persist. Though the grievances in Iraq were many, they are far outweighed by both the human and financial cost that has resulted from the war. The United States has spent billions of dollars fighting the war in Iraq and the multitude has lost thousands of soldiers. On top of that, the civilian casualties in Iraq have been many. Because of this, I stand by the position tha t the war in Iraq is not a just one. The second broad section of the Just War Theory is known as Just in bello. This is the part of the theory that deals with the actual undertaking of the war itself. Who can be attacked and how is a country allowed to make that attack? This section deals with two sub-points, identified as proportionality and discrimination. In regards to proportionality, the Just War Theory states, The quantity of force must be in proportion to the aim of the immediate action, e.g. it would be disproportionate to employ a nuclear weapon against a sniper firing from a populated village (Just War Theory).Given the fact that the Iraqi government and military led no attack against American forces in our country or abroad, it is easy to make an argument that the response was neither measured nor proportional. The United States started its effort in Iraq with a period of bombings that were known as shock and awe. This is itself is an indictment against the justness of th e war, seeing as the name implies that the attack was meant to be proportionally great one in comparison to what would follow in the war.The attack, which consisted of United States bombers dropping large bombs on major places in Iraq, took out not only the Iraqi military locations, but also caused many civilian casualties. Given the fact that the original intention of the war was to go and liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Hussein, this response lacks the proportionality that is required in order for a war to be called just. With that knowledge, one can easily take the position that the United States war effort in Iraq once again broke an article of the Just War Theory and could thus be called an unjust effort. The second portion deals with discrimination, which is defined in much more detail in the document. This is something that the United States government has learned to do moderately well, but the many mistakes that have occurred thus far are enough to deem this wa r as an unjust one. In the literature of the Just War Theory, it states that discrimination happens when, Combatants must discriminate between legitimate and outlawed weapons and between legitimate and illegitimate targets (Just War Theory). This implies that a measure of judgment is required by the leaders and those carrying out the war in order to understand what an appropriate weapon to use is and what an appropriate place to target is.As indicated earlier in the discussion over the shock and awe tactics employed in the early part of this war effort, one can easily see that the United States government did not do a great job of identifying targets and further, they used force that was far too strong given the circumstances. The nature of the war in Iraq has demanded that the United States military do a lot of fighting in close quarter and in civilian laden areas. The fact of that matter is that the U.S. has not correctly identified their targets and when they have, the weapons have been so strong that lots of collateral damage has occurred. The war in Iraq can be described in a number of different ways and with a number of different words depending upon who is doing the describing. Many times, the political biases get in the way of actual discussion over whether or not the war was a just one. The Just War Theory, however, does not hold up for any of that political posturing.It is a clear theory and given the facts that are laid out within it, one can easily take the position that the war in Iraq was an unjust one. Not only did the United States break a few of the conditions for the Just War Theory, they practically smashed the majority of them. By looking at the Just War Theory and applying it to the situation in Iraq, I come away with the feeling that the United States may have had a just cause, but they did not come anywhere near meeting any of the other conditions that are required in order for a war to be just.Works CitedUnited Nations Security Counc il. Resolution 1441. Retrieved from http//www.edenbridgetown.com/ethics/reference/war/un_res_1441.shtmlUnited States Constitution. Article One, Section Eight. Retrieved from http//www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.htmlsection8Jendraszak, Stephen. Jack Of All Trades War in Iraq unjust, short-sighted. Ball State Daily News Online. 7 January 2003. Retrieved from http//media.www.bsudailynews.com/media/storage/paper849/news/2003/01/07/Opinion/Jack-Of.All.Trades.War.In.Iraq.Unjust.ShortSighted-1300588.shtml