Iraqi War Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Iraqi War

Operation Iraqi Freedom: A legitimate and just war?

The United States of America invaded Iraq in 2003 under the direction of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom (Gordon 2006). The foundational information that is said to have precipitated the action was the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which purportedly threatened the security of regions held by allies of the United States and the United Kingdom (Gordon 2006). The United Nations Security Council in 2002 passes Resolution 1441 which required Iraq to adhere to the rules of the United Nations and determine that they were not in possession of cruise missiles or other weapons of mass destruction. There was no evidence found that truly established Iraq as possessors of such weaponry following search and access given to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Larson 2010). Assertions regarding the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqi's was not new. Prior to the Gulf War in the 90's, Iraq is said to have amassed nuclear weapons. Again, the United Nations was activated to bring the country back into alignment regarding the threats to allies because of the possession of such armament (Larson 2010).

When President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech in 2003, he maintains, "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990's had several mobile biological weapons labs" (American Unbound 2003). Bush was not alone in his convictions that Iraq did indeed possess weapons o mass destruction. Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, spoke in front of the United Nations to provide evidence of the existence of nuclear weaponry (Gordon, 2006). Moreover, the French government also believed that Saddam Hussein, the leader in Iraq, had biological weaponry that threatened the allies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Subsequent to the aforementioned activities in 2003, the governments of Spain, the UK and the United States made a proposal for a 18th resolution that would establish a deadline for Iraq to come into compliance with the requirements of the United Nations or there would be military action against Iraq. Because of limited support, the proposal was not accepted and was vehemently opposed by several members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because of the risk of international security. Countries namely Russia, France, Canada and Germany suggested that diplomacy should be used for disarmament instead of war (Gordon 2006).

Reportedly, a meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair occurred in January of 2003 and subsequent to this meeting, the invasion of Iraq transpired on March 20, 2003). More than 40 governments in addition to the United Kingdom and the United States provided troops, services, equipment, security and Special Forces for the invasion (Larson 2010). Accordingly, the goal of the invasion was described as eliminating the weapons of mass destruction, ending the reign of Saddam Hussein, securing intelligence of militia networks, eliminating Islamist extremists/militants, acquiring the petroleum infrastructure of Iraq, distributing aid, and help in the development of a compliant representative government as an example for the Middle East.

Much transpired over the 7 plus years that Iraq was occupied by the military. Subsequent to the invasion Saddam Hussein was captured and the Iraqi insurgency began as discontent grew between the Shia and Sunni Iraqi troops. Al Qaeda also emerged. By 2008, there were approximately 4.7 million individuals classified as refugees and more than 2.5 million were considered displaced from their homes (Biggar 2011). The Red Cross determined in 2008 that the situation for the people of Iraq had reached critical levels and the humanitarian aid being provided was insufficient to meet the ever growing need. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Defense posited that there were signs of economic and security related improvement in the region (Biggar 2011).

Newly elected President Barack Obama developed an 18-month plan of withdrawal for the combat forces that were still remaining in Iraq. Again the reason offered was as a means of training the Iraqi soldiers to be able to police their own once foreign military forces had gone. Those United Kingdom military forces that had been in the country had left by April 2009. Operation Iraqi Freedom instituted by President Obama was declared in 2010 and the combat mission in America was determined to be over. The Iraq war was officially declared over on December 15, 2011. There were many human casualties as a result of the Iraq war. Although the reported numbers vary widely, there are estimates that more than one million people lost their lives in this fight (Davies 2010). There can be no estimate of the mental and psychological damage that those who survived the war have had to contend with (Schechter & Davis 2007). Financially, the war in Iraq is said to have cost more than 845 billion to the United States and more than nine billion dollars to the United Kingdom. The estimated cost to the economy in the United States is estimated to have been three trillion dollars (Trotta 2008).

From the moment the talk of war began to the moment the war was declared over, there was much debate as to the rightness, justification and reasons for the war. Moreover, there was much debate as to whether this was indeed a just war and whether or not the purported reasons for the war were sound and met the requirements for the level of engagement that would transpire. There have been protests before, during and after the war that bespeak these very issues. Following is a review of some of the most pressing issues regarding the war in Iraq, whether the war was just, and the morality or lack thereof, associated with the war effort.

Resistance to the War

The decision to go to war was not uncontested; however, the forces, if any, that were in place at the time made the decision despite opposition and resistance to take the decisive action of invading Iraq. From warnings from previous president Bill Clinton in 2002: "I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die" (Grice 2002) to the public statement by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin saying, "We believe that military intervention would be the worst solution" (Embassy of France 2003). There were those within various governments around the world that echoed the sentiments of Clinton and de Villepin highlighting the fact that there did not exist irrefutable proof of biological weapons or other weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. In 2004, the Secretary General of the United Nations is quoted as saying with regard to the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point-of-view, from the Charter point-of-view, it was illegal" (Washington Post 2006).

Scholars also posit the questionable morality and legality of the invasion of Iraq. Sadat (2009) in her article, "A Presumption of guilt: the unlawful enemy combatant and the U.S. war on terror" posits that the United States response to crimes alleged to have been carried out against America and the global war on terror was hypocritical, dubious and questionable at best (539). Fisher and Biggar in their 2011 article, "Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on Iraq war and reflections on Libya," the authors assert that there continues to be a great deal of debate regarding the rightness of the Iraq war as well as the legality of the war because of the inconsistent nature of the information that the declaration of war was based on (687). Moreover, the basic foundational question of whether the war was moral is one that continues to be at issue and the source of much scholarly debate. Fisher and Biggar assert that it may be difficult to answer a moral question objectively; however, one way to look at the root question is to consider the tradition of the just war.

Fisher and Biggar posit that in order for a war to be determined to be just, there are certain criterion that must be met; for example, the war must be initiated for what is determined to be a just cause with intentions that are right, with 'competent authority utilized as a last resort. If there is harm as a result of the war, that harm should not outweigh the good that has been generated as a result of the war. Moreover, with regard to conduct, the noncombatant immunity and principles of proportion have to be achieved and the war has to end in peace (687). The parameters established by the just war notion does take into account that war is sometimes necessary but there are two requirements that according to the authors have to be met: (1) Is the cause just? And will the harm resulting from the action of the military outweigh the good that is to be achieved by the cause that has been established? In other words, will the war result in more harm than it does good? (Fishar & Biggar 2010, p. 687).

Many reasons for the war were offered by both the United States and British governments at various times. In the months leading up to the war, there were a plethora of reasons offered that made it difficult to rationalize and understand exactly why the war was necessary. The argument regarding weapons of mass destruction was one of the most argued points; however, there was much debate as to whether these alleged weapons of mass destruction even existed (Iraq Survey Group 2004). Another point of contention with the war in Iraq was whether or not there were right intentions. According to many scholars and lay persons, reiterated by Fishar and Biggar, there was serious opposition because the disarmament of Iraq seemed only the beginning of a larger agency established by the U.S., UK and their allies. Reasonable belief that weapons of mass destruction existed, for many, was not enough to determine the war in Iraq to be a just war. Moreover, what again raises questions as to whether this war was just was the consideration of whether the action of war was a last resort; whether or not every viable option to disarm Iraq had been taken before war was declared. Many argue that it was not.

One of the most significant breaches of the notion of a just war is that of proportion; whether or not there was serious consideration and estimation of the damage that would be done as a result of a war of this scale and magnitude. Again after 8 years of war, the casualties of more than 4,400 U.S. soldiers, and well over 1,000,000 deaths total casts some serious doubt as to whether proportion was considered (Biggar 2011).

The Issue of Morality

Hurka in his article "Proportionality in the Morality of War (2005), maintains that the morality of war is often gauged by the just war theory that sets out two conditions of proportionality that indicate whether or not a war is justified and whether the harm resulting from the war is considered to be excessive. These considerations are large as it relates to the war in Iraq. Hurka asserts that because it is necessary for empirical study to be conducted to truly assess proportionality, determined to be a very controversial and complex issue in and of itself, there can only be opinion and speculation as to whether or not the notion of proportionality in war is real, factual or legitimate. Any violation of the conditions established by the just war theory, as previously outlined, determines the war to be morally unjustified (Hurka 2005). Hurka describes the conditions in greater detail advising that the jus ad bellum conditions relate to political leaders in their decision whether or not to initiate war or respond to another entities doing so with military force. The jus in bello conditions of the just war theory establish the means used to engage in war and are again directed at those in political leadership. These conditions are purportedly independent of each other so an entity can engage in one without necessarily engaging the other (Hurka 2005).

Hurka asserts that the ad bellum condition is the most important of the two because it bespeaks the issue of the cause of war being justified. He goes further to suggest that the most widely accepted just cause for war is resisting aggression, or an armed attach on one's own or another state, but there can also be a just cause when one state sponsors or allows deadly attacks on another's citizens without threatening the other's territory (35).

He further informs that presently, there are those theorists who posit a humanitarian just case that serves as a means of protection for the citizens of another state from having their rights violated by their government. Further there are additional ad bellum conditions including that war have to be declared by an authority determined to be legitimate and the intentions of the fight must be right. Moreover, there has be reasonable success and in the absence of achieving this level of success the destructiveness of the war has no purpose (Hurka 2005). The majority of the focus of Hurka's position rests with the ad bellum regarding proportionality which states that the wars destructiveness cannot be out of proportioned from what is determined to be the relevant good that the war will serve. Even when just cause has been established, according to this ad bellum condition, and there is no way of achieving the desired results other than by war, choosing war as an option can be considered wrong if the damage that results is determined to be excessive Hurka 2005).

The questions that are raised by the conditions of proportionality that have been established, and posited by Hurka (2005) are: "What are the relevant goods that count in favor of a war's or act's proportionality? (2) What are the relevant evils that count against it? (3) How do these goods and evils weigh against each other?" (37). Accordingly proportionality suggests that all the evils and all the goods are to be counted and weighed equally and if the total evil caused by war outweighs the total good, then the war is determined to be morally unjust. With regard to the relevant evils associated with war and proportionality, there are posited few if any restrictions as it parallels to relevant goods (Hurka 2005). He offers the example that if a war hampers the society economically, it is considered evil. At the same token, if war aids society financially, it may not be necessarily good because other factors are calculated into the equation. Hurka maintains that because there is no real limit to the things that can be counted as evil, the proportionality scale is tipped in favor of relevant good.

Good and evil must be weighed against each when the issue of proportionality is at hand. As such, Hurka posits that the sovereignty of a nation must be considered when these two positions are evaluated. One of the most justified reasons for engaging in warfare and proportionality is self-defense and/or resisting aggression. Hurka maintains "This view makes sense given a traditional understanding of just war theory on which the entities with rights in the international realm are states, understood as indivisible entities with a status parallel to that of individuals in the morality of self-defense" (41). As such, the state has the right to protect itself, even if that means killing the person attacking. However arguments have developed regarding this notion as rights ultimately belong to the individual not the state and morals rest with the individual and rights by the state must be derived from and be about the rights of the individual citizens (Hurka 2005).