Can operation Iraqi freedom be considered a just war?

To answer this question in a clear manner one must firstly provide a distinct definition of what is operation Iraqi Freedom and what is a ‘just war’.  A clear definition of a just war is essential as it may reflect greatly on the outcome or interpretation of the war as a whole.  The first question one may bring forward is what is a just war? There have been many debates for a clear definition of what is a just war however Nigel Downers definition was very much similar to my perception of a just war.  He suggests that a war is not perceived as a just war if it does not follow a few basic features that ‘war’ must follow.  Firstly war must be declared by a legitimate authority and must be affirmed for a ‘just cause’ for example, the right of self defence or adjust injustice.   It also must be engaged with a right intention and whether it is morally acceptable and war must be the last resort.  There has to be a reasonable view of success in achieving the goal as the amount of good to be achieved must outweigh the harm that is done in the war.  

For those who are unclear about Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is an operation clearly stated by the name attempting to liberate the Iraqi nation of the evil as well as remove mass destruction weapons in Iraq.  

Many debates have risen towards whether the war in Iraq is a just war or not.  The first argument that could be addressed suggesting that the Iraq war is not just could be, by using the U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld speech who supposed that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction before the start of the U.S. campaign against Iraq.  His remarks are seen as the strongest indication that G.W.Bush and Tony Blair may not reach any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; as this was the reason for their invasion of Iraq, presuming that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that can be used within 45 minutes of shooting.  

On the other hand, it should be noted that the UN had sent its weapons inspectors to Iraq in order to clarify on the truthfulness of Bush and Blair’s allegations and found that the allegations were false and there were no signs of mass destruction weapons left in Iraq.  This suggests that operation Iraqi Freedom is not a just war; as Bush and Blair had accused Iraq of owning mass destruction weapons and are becoming allies with terrorists who may in the future attack USA which is false.

Hans Blix a former UN weapons inspector was sent to Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction and had withdrawn from Iraq when the U.S and UK invaded.  During his inspection he found that there were no weapons of mass destruction left after Iraq had destroyed all its weapons in 1991.  However the U.S and UK did not approve of the U.N’s statements and took disarmament into their own hands. Blix rather blames Bush and Blair for the terrorism around in current states -due to the interpretations and anger they have developed in many people- as Saddam Hussein was cooperative with the U.N and helpful by giving names of scientists who could have been questioned and this may have resolved the problem if it weren’t for the intervention.  This suggests that the U.S and UK did not trust or believe what the UN had set out and found and, decided to take action for their own benefits and the weapons of mass destruction could be seen as an excuse in order for them to be able to enter Iraq.  

Join now!

In addition to what has been mentioned earlier, there is also the assumption that according to just war tradition in Jus in Bello there must be a proportionality of means; this is that the U.S and UK must use proportionate force and weaponry in accordance to Iraq.  In other words, the US and UK had used its full abilities fearing the perception they had had that Saddam may use his nuclear weapons against them.  However, the argument here is that the Iraqi forces did not use their “mass destruction weapons” against the U.S. and British troops when they could ...

This is a preview of the whole essay