Just War Theory and Iraq, Part II

A key principle of just war theory is that war must be undertaken as a last resort. It is feasible that in dealing with a crisis, all non-military options may be exhausted, or a party to the conflict may launch a military strike first, and the only viable option at that point may be war.

While that is clearly a possible case, it is not the case in regards to the US and Iraq.

Iraq presented no immediate threat to the United States.

• Iraq had made no effort to attack a US interest since the 1993 planned assassination attempt on former President Bush.
• The alleged connection between Iraq and September 11 was never supported by any credible evidence, and, of course, was later proven without foundation.
• The alleged connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was equally spurious, with bin Laden having declared Hussein's government an 'apostate regime' that he wished to see overthrown with a Taliban style regime.
• Even if the arguments about WMD had been accurate, which, of course, they were not, Iraq had shown no capability or intention to make use of such weapons against the US, and the US presence in the region, and with the 'no fly zones' had even been keeping Hussein in check in regards to his treatment of the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shia in the south.

That last point is key. With the stepped up efforts in the no fly zones, and the periodic strikes against targets in Iraq when Hussein did step out of line within Iraq's borders, Hussein was being contained.

The proper model for considering how to deal with Iraq was provided by the 'cold war' between the US and the Soviet Union. Dealing with the Soviets meant containing their threats, not destroying them. A comprehensive policy of military preparedness, international cooperation, and economic sanctions was largely effective in keeping the Soviet Union from posing an immediate threat to the United States. I know the analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough to be relevant. The US could have continued to contain Iraq through the sanctions regime and no fly zones.

Those who supported the war would sometimes say something to the effect, "This has been going on for 10 plus years." My reply, "So what?" Do we have a timetable on peace? If a policy had protected the US for 10 years, is it time to scrap that policy?

War Iraq a cause for concern? Yes. Was it an imminent threat that called for immediate action? No.

The US could have continued policies that had been working in dealing with Iraq, and, if necessary, could have explored other policies that did not call for a military invasion. The President and his advisers had another agenda, sought to tie Iraq to 9/11 even when the tie was not there, overplayed their hand on the issue of WMD, and drove this nation into a war that was not only unnecessary, but actually has made us less secure- according to the President's own intelligence advisers.

The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not a policy of last resort. As a result, the war in Iraq has failed a second criteria for a just war.

GP

[See Part I of this series of posts here]