Iraq's Invasion by the United States of America

Certainly the absence of these weapons has been profoundly embarrassing to the administration.

It may be said that the apparent cypher of these weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq at the start of 2003 does not, in and of itself, automatically undermine the WMD argument as a apology for the struggle. Iraq is known beyond dispute to have had WMD in the past, because it used them in the 1980s, both against Iran and against its own people (Kurds in northern Iraq). It never fully accounted for them, and had a long embark of non-cooperation with UN inspectors whose mission was to ensure that they were destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War. This non-cooperation lead to the inspectors' withdrawal in 1998.

A reasonable presumption could and so be argued that Iraq still possessed some WMD. Even many a(prenominal) critics of the fight (including this writer) were surprised when absolutely none of these weapons turned up. Moreover, a case could be made that Iraq's presumed possession of WMD was sufficient howeverification for irresponsible diplomacy to ensure that it was disarmed of these weapons. That is, Iraq might arguably be threatened with war if it did not re-admit the UN inspectors and permit them to complete their unfinished work. (Whether possession of WMD would pass the test of compulsion will be addressed below.)

Mackay, Neil (2004). Former provide Aide: US Plotted Iraq incursion Long Before 9/11. Sunday Herald Online (January 11).

These heap undermine, at minimum, the " know resort" condition for a just war. Even if we grant that Iraq in late 2002 could be clean presumed to have WMD, and stipulate that its possession of such weapons met the threshholds of necessity, just cause, and proportionality, the Bush governing ignored its own success at "coercive diplomacy" and instead went to war.

It is not plausible to argue that this was a last resort.

This leaves the test of "a reasonable chance of success." The return of a battlefield war between the US and Iraq was scarecely in doubt, and in fact the fighting was quite one-sided. However, if the ultimate war objective was to create a peaceful or democratic Iraq, this outcome is very much in doubt. The Bush Administration seems to have given no serious thought to how to succeed it (Clark, 2004, pp. 88-92); it seems to be presumed -- in spite of much expert ruling -- that battlefield victory would be enough. Thus, even whether the Iraq war had a reasonable success of success is questionable.

To be justified, a war must meet all the tests given at the get of this discussion. Thus, the fact that the Iraq war was clearly not a last resort is sufficient to find that it was unjustified. The other requirements for a just war may thus be dealt with briefly.

Clark, Wesley K. (2004). Winning advance(a) Wars. New York: Public Affairs.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.