The 'Just War' Arguments on Iraq

The "Just War" argument is a special branch of military philosophy and ethics geared towards determining whether or not it is justifiable for one nation to declare war upon another. There are five criteria that need to be fulfilled, and this article will explore each of these five criteria in an attempt to see how they apply to the impending war against Iraq.

Generally, a Just War theorist cannot just assign rationalities to each of the five criteria, but must add context and make comparisons and draw parallels to how their line of thinking on one of the given criterion applies to other wars which were also considered just (or unjust, as the case may be). This article won't go there, nor will it try to promote one view over another, but instead talk about those circumstances which support the five criteria, and those which may not.

Basically, in order to state that a war (or potential war) is just, you need to fulfill five criteria. The Just War theorist must show that:

1. Your country has just cause

2. The war is being declared by a proper authority

3. Your war is driven by the right intentions

4. Your war has a reasonable chance of success

5. The ends will be proportional to the means used

Criterion 1: Does the invasion of Iraq have a just cause?

Reasons to say "Yes": If we expand the scope of analysis to cover the last two decades of history, a case can be made that Saddam Hussein is dangerous, and, therefore, Iraq is dangerous. His crimes against the Kurds and his aggressions upon Kuwait are sufficient reasons to believe that he is a threat to his neighbours. Also, on an economic front, Iraq represents a variance from homogeny in the region, and is widely considered the key power player on the other side of the oil equation. If such a country were able to destabilize the region, the United States' interests in the region, as well as the interests of Israel, are very much imperilled.

Reasons to say "No": Most of the crimes committed by Iraq are not exactly contemporary in nature. Hussein is not in the process of committing chemical or biological warfare upon anyone, nor is he in the process of invading another nation. Our understandings of the suffering of Iraq's people are nebulous -- the West cannot entirely be sure that Hussein is hurting his people more than the West's own economic sanctions currently are. The deposing of a regime is a dangerous and lengthy endevour, and there is no guarantee that the power vaccuum created by Saddam's removal would result in more favourable circumstances for the United States. Iraq has already been made to atone for Hussein's past transgressions, and it is unreasonable to put a nation in a perpetual state of punishment based purely on speculation.

Criterion 2: Is the war being declared by a proper authority?

Reasons to say "Yes": The American Congress, the only government body that can declare war, can be held accountable by its population, therefore it is a proper authority to declare such a war. No other consideration really needs to be made.

Reasons to say "No": This is a Bush Administration initiative being conducted at a time when criticizing the president is tantamount to political suicide. When Bush was elected, it was not with a wartime mandate. As such, he does not necessarily speak on behalf of the people, and an open debate on the issue would show that there is no tangible link between an Invasion of Iraq and the events of September 11th, which are the obvious fuel to the military fire propelling the United States right now. It is immoral to arbitrarily declare a war in such an environment.

Criterion 3: Is the war being driven by the right intentions?

Reasons to say "Yes": Saddam Hussein has already shown himself to be a threat. There should be no statute of limitations considering some of his crimes, and only a fool would entrust such a man with even more powerful weapons than he's already used to having. Iraq has repeatedly thrown up obstacles to UN weapons inspections, which it would not do if there weren't something to hide.

Reasons to say "No": The United States' motives are clouded by oil politics and domestic power-grabbing. If the United States wanted to bring a better form of government to the people of Iraq, it would try to install a democracy, which it cannot do so long as there remains a large anti-American sentiment which could bring about the election of leaders promising a vengeance mandate. Plus, former UN inspectors and others believe that Iraq is no tangible threat to the U.S., or American interests in the region.

Criterion 4: Does the war have a reasonable chance of success?

Reasons to say "Yes": Technologically and militarily, the United States is second to none in the world, on a scale where Iraq barely rates. The primary objective, to eliminate Hussein, is achievable given the military capabilities. There will never be a better time to strike, and the longer the United States waits, the longer Iraq has to prepare competent counter-attacking measures.

Reasons to say "No": If we examine the deeper motives of an attack upon Iraq, namely, to make the world a safer place, one has to wonder if this will be achieved simply with a removal of Hussein. Plus, there are potential PR disasters everywhere: the fact that only the American people are convinced that this war is just, but the rest of the world by and large is wavering; the large number of civilian casualties that are likely to happen; Iraq's recent economic negotiations with Russia (which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is already trying to spin); the potential parallels with Vietnam; etc. The disasters could have spin-off effects that could compromise the intended aims of a war against Iraq.

Criterion 5: Will the ends be proportional to the means used?

Reasons to say "Yes": The amount of damage that the United States will inflict upon Iraq in this war will be nothing compared to the amount of damage the United States risks allowing happen to itself by doing nothing, since WMDs are not difficult to deploy once produced. Furthermore, if the last three major American conflicts are any measure, there should be very few American casualties. The prospect of a new militarily-aligned nation in the region with access to large quantities of oil would be a very valuable by-product.

Reasons to say "No": A removal of Saddam Hussein is, politically, a cosmetic gesture. The underlying hostilities facing the United States will remain, and possibly increase, in the face of an invasion, and the number of civilians who will likely be killed in an invasion is frightening, particularly given similar casualty rates in other recent engagements by NATO. Furthermore, the potential scope of blowback in the international community is quite large and could ultimately create more hazards than are present in the status quo vis-a-vis Iraq. Finally, if the aim becomes anything more nebulous than the removal of Hussein, there is no longer any guarantee that American casualties will be limited, and an open-ended war could spell economic disaster, not to mention the probability of a Vietnam-like backlash amongst civilians at home.

Summary:

As time winds down on the Bush administration to make a decision on a possible invasion of Iraq, it is likely that we are going to see more debate on the above points. Only criterion #4, the possibility of success, seems a foregone conclusion, but even then only if the scope of the operation is firmly defined from the outset.

Much of the rest of the above is open to speculation, and no doubt we are going to continue to be flooded with talking heads on both sides asking us to accept potentially oversimplified views on which course of action should be taken. There is philosophical precedent in deciding whether a war is just or unjust, and hopefully, before a decision either way is made, the proper case will be offered to the public.