An Effective Use of Power?

A look at the Persian Gulf War and the War in Iraq

During the United States brief history, it has rarely been in a situation where it was directly threatened by a nation. This does not mean that it has not stepped in on plenty of conflicts though. As a super-power, and more recently a hegemonic power, the role of the United States has been to ensure the safety of not only its citizens, but of all human beings. In a more recent situation, the invasion of Kuwait was no exception to the responsibilities of the United States. What this paper discusses is whether the United States role in the Persian Gulf War was justified and that they did everything they could before relying on military action. International organizations have fought long and hard to develop international law focused on the law of war. Initially, these laws focused on the issues of traditional state-versus-state warfare. With the new age of warfare, international law must also attempt to regulate revolutionary and internal warfare and terrorism.

In order to exemplify these diverse concerns, we must determine when a war is necessary and how it should be fought. This is when the “just war” theory comes into play. The “just war” theory consists of two parts: The cause of war and the conduct of war. It is mainly believed that the just cause of war (jus ad bellum) exists in cases where the war is declared by a legitimate authority, is a last resort, waged in self defense or to establish/restore justice, and fought to bring about peace. The reasoning for going to war in the first place needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. The US Catholic Conference took a much more contemporary view of just cause when they stated that "force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations" (Douglas, p.71). We must also use a comparative justice approach on the matter in order to further prove a war as just. While there are clearly rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, in order to override the supposition against the use of force, the injustice that has been suffered by one party must drastically outweigh that suffered by the opposing party. There have been some theorists, such as Brian Orend, who have omitted this term by deeming it as fertile ground for exploitation by pugnacious regimes. Next, a legitimate authority must declare a war in order for it to fulfill another requirement of just war. Only suitably constituted public authorities may wage a war. Presently, the United Nations is seen as the main authority for determining whether a war is just.

A nation's actions are only deemed “just” if they are enacted with the right intention. This means that force may be used only when it is truly a just cause and solely for that purpose alone. An example may be correcting a suffered wrong, which is considered a right objective; while material gain or maintaining an economy is not. Following this, the probability of success must be considered. The use of arms may not be used in a pointless cause or within a case where “disproportionate measures are required to achieve overall success” (Young, p.27). Clearly a war should not be conducted unless it is by all means, a last resort. The use of force may only be conducted after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously attempted and exhausted. It may become clear that the opposing party is using negotiations only as a delaying tactic and will not make significant concessions. Lastly, the projected benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to the wars expected evils or harms that will result.

Once the war had begun, there are requirements set to ensure that combatants are continuing to act ethically. This part of the just war requirement is known as Jus in Bello. The first point states that just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should “only be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants who are caught in a situation for which they did not create” (Dastrup, p.179). Such prohibited acts include the bombing of civilian residential areas which do not include military targets and committing acts of terrorism or retaliation against ordinary civilians. Just war conduct should further be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force by which a nation uses must be proportional to the wrong endured, and also to the projected good that may result. The more disproportional the number of civilian deaths become, the more questioning a nation will have to endure as to whether they are following the guidelines of a just war. Lastly, just war conduct should be governed by the standard of minimum force. An attack must be intended to help in the military’s defeat of the enemy. This must be an attack on a military objective, in which the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be comparative and “not disproportionate in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated” (Woods, p.14). This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Join now!

The ongoing question has been whether the United States’ actions before entering the Persian Gulf War met the requirements of declaring a just war and whether the actions committed once in Iraq were adequate enough to abide by the standards of Jus in Bello.  Using the “just war” theory outlined by Michael Walzer's “Just and Unjust Wars”, it states that the American-led coalition against Saddam Hussein's forces in the Persian Gulf War did not only prove his actions as unjustified, but it also legitimizes the response by the United Nations' coalition force (Walzer, p.7). The rest of the paper ...

This is a preview of the whole essay