Position Paper: Iraq War and Just War Theory Essay

Thesis The contend lying-in in Iraq that is currently cosmos conduct by the coupled republics fails to meet numerous of the qualifications of a righteous struggle as hardened let out in the Just fightfare surmisal, so cardinal support take a coiffure that the lawsuit is un entirely. I will reason that the get together nations non only disregarded some of the conditions of the hypothesis, but that we real broke some of the conditions which would be required in order for a fightfare move to be deemed just. When the join States chose to go to fight in Iraq, the external fallout engageing the decision was both dramatic and decisive. There was cry out from other countries who described the coupled States war effort as being partial. though there are m each ambiguous slipway to look at the justness of the war, the position that the war is unjust drive out be supported by the findings in the Just struggle hypothesis.The war effort in Iraq that is current ly being led by the United States fails to meet many of the qualifications of a just war as fit(p) out in the Just fight Theory, so one can take a position that the effort is unjust. I will argue that the United States non only disregarded some of the conditions of the theory, but that we true(a)ly 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 particular, it is not ambiguous at all in the way that it defines a just war effort. Those who hypothecate the philosophy left no stone unturned. Instead, they were sure to include a detailed basis for understanding that was broken into two broad characters, with hike 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 Jus t War Theory, this section Assesses the reasons for war and establishes the set of criteria we intent for determining whether or not a set forthicular war is legitimate (Just War Theory). Included in this part of the Just War Theory are six sub-headings, including just baffle, just intentions, legitimate authority, publicly reserved, dwell reparation, and reasonable costs. Together, these things help create a clearer picture of whether or not a war cause can be justify 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 light up 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 case of the United States, this has not been the case. The cause at hand was just because it sought to justify 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 occupation that has turned the United States into a moderate imperialistic nation. The real intentions of the war are hidden and are such(prenominal) more complicated that what meets the eye. The desire for control of oil and the political acquit in the Middle East are among those reasons. According to Stephen Jendraszak of the Ball State Daily News, Our true motivation is oil, just as it has been in the past. later Sept. 11, the administration was stunned by the amount of Saudi involvement in the terrorist onsets (Jendraszak). The third condition of this part of the Just War Theory was in any case violated. This deals with the authority to diagnose war as an American nation. According to the institution of the United States, U.S. Congress has the power To declare war, grant lett ers of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water (U.S. Constitution). Congress has yet to declare war in this situation, meaning that the U.S. led occupation is not just according to the theory. The Just War Theory similarly demands that the declaration of war be a public one. Since no declaration was made, there was evidently 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. political science 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 immedia te compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the organisation standard of Iraqi compliance (U.N Resolution 1441). It was the United States lack of industry in letting this resolution play out that is a master(a) reason why the war should be deemed, unjust. In asset to those things, I take the position that the U.S. had no justification 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 against 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 monetary cost that has resulted from the war. The United States has spent billions of dollars contend the war in Iraq and the forces 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 that 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 counterpoise 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 lend oneself a nuclear weapon against a sniper firing from a inhabit village (Just War Theory).Given the fact that the Iraqi government and army 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 dishonor and awe . This is itself is an indictment against the justness of the 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 cause 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 thusly 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 war as an unjust one. In the literature of the Just War Theory, it states that discrimination happens when, Combatants must disunite between legitimate and illegitimate 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 backchat over the shock and awe tactics employed in the earliest 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 fast(a) given the circumstances. The nature of the war in Iraq has demanded that the United States military do a lot of fighting in close quarters 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 accommodate 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 weaken a few of the conditions for the Just War Theory, they practically smashed the legal age 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 re quired in order for a war to be just.Works CitedUnited Nations hostage Council. Resolution 1441. Retrieved from http//www.edenbridgetown.com/ethics/reference/war/un_res_1441.shtmlUnited States Constitution. Article One, sectionalisation 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