This paper examines whether the Iraq War can be considered justified through the lens of just war theory. It outlines the theory's core principles — including lawful declaration, just cause, just intent, last resort, and non-combatant immunity — and applies them to the U.S. invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. Drawing on conservative and critical perspectives alike, the paper argues that while the War on Terror carried initial moral weight under retributive justice, the specific intervention in Iraq was built on flawed intelligence, clouded by political agendas, and produced consequences — civilian casualties, regional destabilization, and damaged international reputation — that undermine any claim to justification.
This paper explores the concept of war from the point of view of just war theory. In order to better understand war, one must look at the concept from all angles, including the point of view of peace movements. What is the just war theory and what are its principles? What does the theory represent, and who subscribes to it? By answering such questions, one can better understand the conflicts resulting in death and destruction that define contemporary warfare.
More specifically, this paper looks at the Iraq War and asks: is the war in Iraq justified? It examines sources that address both sides of the issue and argues that the war is not justified. Part of the problem with discussing the Iraq War is that it provokes intense emotional responses. That is the nature of open democratic society — citizens are free to voice their beliefs. But what happens when one believes the country is not taking the right course of action? How does one formulate a well-constructed argument to persuade others toward a different view?
Discussion of the Iraq War is difficult because the United States had already suffered enormously at the hands of terrorists. The best way to confront this subject is to examine both sides carefully and weigh the facts to assess justification. As Brandon Hill writes, "we are able to listen to the voices of ALL the Church, not simply one or two voices" (1). The sections below examine the facts on each side while building the argument that the war is not just, but wrong in its intentions.
The just war theory is the most widely held view of war among Christians. The just war approach is based "upon the moral theory known as natural law morality" (Hill 2). Natural law morality holds that all people — regardless of religious affiliation — recognize certain behaviors as immoral. This consensus spans all major world religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Accordingly, all these traditions agree that murder, theft, and dishonesty are immoral. This principle applies not only within individual societies but across cultures as a whole.
A telling example of natural law morality in practice is the trial and conviction of Nazi war criminals for crimes against humanity — prosecuted on the basis of the universally recognized immorality of their conduct. Within just war theory, specific elements must be satisfied, as follows: (1) declaration by a lawful government, (2) just cause, (3) just intent, (4) last resort, and (5) immunity of non-combatants. Even with these elements defined, as will be discussed below, each can be interpreted and manipulated to carry multiple meanings depending on context. This is precisely how a war can appear justified to one person and entirely wrong to another.
The just war theory appeals to the concept of retributive justice — an eye for an eye — particularly as applied in civil punishment. Brandon Hill summarizes this view: "any enemy of the state that threatens the well-being of the state can, and should be punished" (2). This reasoning explains America's response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The country had every right to defend itself and to return the threat as a form of punishment. The continued War on Terror and the United States' expansion of Homeland Security are clearly warranted under this logic — indeed, they were expected. It is only human nature to seek accountability for pain and loss suffered.
Unfortunately, it is this paper's contention that while the War on Terror is justifiable, it created an atmosphere in which the war in Iraq also appeared justifiable to many Americans. In effect, the War on Terror clouded the public's perception of what was actually driving the Bush administration's agenda in Iraq. With fear, paranoia, grief, and anger dominating public sentiment, the political environment was ideal for launching military action while retaining popular approval. Ramesh Ponnuru writes, "a vast majority of conservatives supported the decision to use force to topple the Iraqi regime and thought the war was justified based on what we had reason to believe at the time it began and based on what we know now" (3). It was further argued that had action not been taken, despite the sanctions on Iraq, "the regime would have been able and willing to make a menace of itself" (Ponnuru 3).
Still, one must carefully review all the facts of "what we know now" and ask how American intervention can be justified in the present circumstances. Many conservatives claim the war is over — yet American troops remain in harm's way. Ponnuru, although conservative in his writing, acknowledges the other side: "opponents often claimed that the war was motivated by America's thirst for oil or President Bush's desire to avenge his father and that failure to find the weapons proved that the president had been lying" (4). These claims came into sharper focus after the fall of the regime and offered the public a new set of criteria with which to re-evaluate the just cause behind the war.
President Bush rationalized that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the world because "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitute a serious threat to humanity" (CAIR 1). Yet even granting this threat, many believed it should have been addressed through the United Nations — though this would logically require holding countries like North Korea and Iran to the same standard. Justified or not, the American invasion led to "the death of many innocent civilians, further destabilization of an already unstable region, harm to international efforts to combat terrorism, drained much-needed financial resources from our struggling economy and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral intervention in the affairs of other nations" (CAIR 2).
"Examines flawed intelligence and political consequences"
"Evaluates last resort criterion and war's inevitability"
This paper explored the concept of war through the lens of just war theory. In order to better understand war, one must examine it from all angles, including the perspective of peace movements. By addressing the nature, principles, and advocates of just war theory, this paper sought to illuminate the conflicts — resulting in death and destruction — that characterize contemporary warfare.
More specifically, this paper examined the Iraq War and asked whether it is justified. After reviewing sources representing both sides of the debate, the argument presented here is that the war is not justified. Discussion of the Iraq War is complicated by the intense emotional responses it generates and by the trauma the United States had already endured at the hands of terrorists. The best approach remains examining both sides and assessing the facts dispassionately to reach a conclusion about justification.
The analysis above reviewed the evidence on each side and concluded that the war is not just, but wrong in its intentions. The just war theory's principles — just cause, just intent, last resort, and non-combatant immunity — were not sufficiently met. The intervention was built on flawed intelligence, shaped by political agendas, and produced consequences whose human and moral costs outweigh any justification that might have existed at the outset.
"CAIR: U.S. Muslims Say War on Iraq Not Justified." US Newswire, 23 Feb. 2003.
Hill, Brandon D. "A Christian Perspective on War." Your Guide to Christian Teens, May 2005.
Ponnuru, Ramesh. "The Tempting of Conservatism: In Supporting Bush and the GOP, Don't Lose Yourself." National Review, 22 Dec. 2003.
Walton, Don. "Bereuter: War in Iraq Not Justified." Lincoln Journal Star, 18 Aug. 2004.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.