The U.S. Invasion of Iraq and Just War Theory
February 13, 2014
A corrupt nation can only win so many times before the lies begins to unravel and questions begins to rise. There haves been many incident throughout the history where the actions takenook by the government could be ruled unjust, yet people always tend to be blinded by the reality that stands in front of them. A war may have many reasons behind it, but for it to be considered just, but it must follow certain conditions. The U.S invasion of Iraq in 2003 completely annihilated the idea of just war and thus started a new epidemic war series that lasted for years. It was never about the fear of terrorism or being attacked by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; it was all for the wrong intentions. The Bush administration wasere going after their own incentives, without the concern of how it’s going to impact Iraq or the people within it. The war against Iraq lasted until 2011, resulting in a complete catastrophe. Vanity Fair’s article, “The Path to War,” targeted the Bush administration and exposed the truth behind the lies that turned Americans against Iraq. It unravels the path of corruption, deception and arrogance marked by the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and other insiders. Considering the actions that the Bush Administrations took, the question really becomes whether the war was justified. In “Just War Theory” Jus Ad Bellum list a series of criteria under which the war could be considered just. The list could be split into the four following areas:; just cause, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. To go against even one of these given conditions would violate the rights of other legitimate states and the basic rights of its citizens. US invasion of Iraq not only violated each one these areas, but the administration acted as if they were going to war in self-defense and thus they were justified in launchingit was alright for them to launch a pre-emptive strike. US invasion of Iraq was an act of deception and miscalculation resulted by the Bush administration, and it led to more dire consequences than ever expected.
The war with Iraq had begun solely due to the wrong intentions and since Iraq exposed no real threat to U.S, the war cannot be considered just. The central idea the U.S government presented to lead an invasion in Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and his purported links to Al- Qaeda terrorists. However, for it to be considered a factor of just cause, the presented information must be factual and eminent threat must be present. The facts they claimed were not only “discredited but deliberatelyd exaggerated” and they “knew Iraq was no threat to the US” (Hinnebusch 11). There weren’t any threat being made to US by Iraq, it was all about corruption, showing strength and power. Even if Iraq did had WMD’s, it doesn’t make it right for US to make a preemptive strike. Iraq is nowhere as strong as US army and going in a war against them would just devastate Iraq completely. The attack of 9/11 gave US the perfect excuse to deceive Americans into thinking Iraq was indeed the enemy and Saddam, a former ally of US, was in fact associated with Al Qaeda. However, all their reasons were based on strict assumption. When they couldn’t find any evidence, they blamed Saddam and stated that “failed states such as Saddam’s were a breeding ground for terrorists,” and thus they needed to attack Iraq (Burrough 5). The real priorities of US were the Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban, and since Iraq wasn’t associated with either one of them, the Bush administration leading an attack on Iraq wasn’t an act of retaliation or self-defense. Bush’s true purpose in wanting to get rid of Saddam could have been due to an interest in seeking political and economic benefit. Middle East has the largest…