Just War Analysis of the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq according to jus ad bellum criteria – were we in the right to start that war? We begin with the historical context including the faulty information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. That history is then used to determine whether the invasion passes the jus ad bellum standards of Just War Theory.

Historical Background¹

Official build-up for the invasion began with the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”, also known as the “Iraq Resolution”, which was passed in October 2002 by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It authorized the use of American forces against Iraq in what would be called “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The factors used to justify the war included:

1. Iraq’s development and possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as well as operation of mobile weapons labs
2. Their possession of unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver said WMDs
3. Their support for terrorism, including harboring members of al-Qaeda and paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers
4. Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Iraqi people and the Kurds

This was followed by the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 2002 which demanded that Iraq allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq appeared to comply with the resolution.

In early 2003, President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair stated that Iraq was hindering the UN weapons inspectors. Leaders of Germany and France sought extended inspections and wanted to give Iraq more time to comply with the inspectors.

On 5 February 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a presentation to the UN Security Council claiming that Iraq had maintained its stockpile of WMDs, that it was hiding evidence of its WMDs from UN weapons inspectors, that it silenced its weapons scientists, and that it continued to harbor al-Qaeda terrorists. These were the reasons used to start the war.

On 17 March, President Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum: leave Iraq in 48 hours. He didn’t.

On 20 March 2003 kinetic operations began with precision-guided missile attacks against the suspected location of Saddam Hussain, followed by bombings of government and military buildings. Major operations were completed six weeks later, and the occasion was marked by President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on 1 May 2003.

On 30 September 2004 the Iraq Survey Group, a multinational group organized by the CIA and the Pentagon, released a report (the Duelfer Report) stating that Iraq had no significant amount of chemical WMDs³. It was believed that the WMDs did exist – and were used against the Kurds – but the weapons were sent to Syria. The idea that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism remains unclear.

The justification for the war changed at this point to the plight of the Iraqi and Kurdish people under Saddam, and the goal became removing him and the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party from power.

The war did not end by this time, for once we defeated the Ba’ath Party, the insurgency started. Politics abhors a vacuum, and we began fighting a new enemy.

Just Cause

St. Augustine lists² three jus ad bellum conditions: defending against attack, recapturing things taken, and punishing a nation that has done wrong. According to (faulty) intelligence, Iraq’s people and its neighbors were in immediate danger from WMDs, and according to (accurate) intelligence, Saddam’s regime was actively violating the individual rights of its citizens. Thus, our invasion of was justified because we were defending others against imminent danger and punishing Iraq for doing wrong by the Kurds and other Iraqi people.

Proportionality

Proportionality is a slippery concept in action. The broad idea is that when an enemy destroys one of our ships, we destroy one of theirs, when the enemy downs one of our airplanes, we do the same to one of his airplanes, and so on. The enemy is supposed to remain stationary while we pursue a proportionate response. Nice theory, but in practice things don’t work that way.

The reality is more like this: the enemy destroys one of our vessels, and in our act of responding proportionally, the enemy sends fighters to stop our response, we then use surface-to-air missiles, and so on. Each combatant is starring in his own “Saving Private Ryan” movie, and once the situation escalates it becomes extremely difficult to stop.

An alternative to proportionality is this: does our response not only stop the immediate harm but also removes the capability of performing similar harm in the future? The American forces disabled Iraq’s air defense system, which allowed the ground invasion to go forward unencumbered. We targeted only government and military installations, and the government and military were the ones harming people. We not only stopped them doing harm and we also prevented them from repeating this harm in the future. This theory has plenty of edge cases, and it may not be possible to justify this approach within Just War Theory.

Reasonable Chance of Success

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a well-designed and well-implemented plan that involved combined use of air and ground forces. Our Air Force, Marines, and Army were far superior to the corresponding Iraqi forces, so we had a very reasonable chance of success.

Legitimate Authority and Public Declaration

Congress has the power to declare war, and while the Iraq Resolution was approved by Congress, it did not declare war. The Resolution only authorized President Bush to use military force against Iraq. However, the Iraq Resolution can be seen as a public declaration announcing America’s intention to initiate military action against that country.

Right Intentions

If Iraq possessed WMDs and weapons labs, and if Iraq possessed the capability to deliver the WMDs, and if Saddam had plans of using these weapons on the Iraqis or other people, then we had the right intentions for invading Iraq with the goal of removing those weapons and delivery capabilities.

As it goes, Iraq didn’t have WMDs, but the treatment of the Iraqis and Kurds under Saddam and the Ba’ath Party was still an issue. Our intentions to drive Saddam from power and to De-Ba’athify the government were good intentions, and our actions were in support of those intentions.

Does this mean America must topple oppressive governments all over the world? It does not, for doing so does not further any pressing national interest. National interest does not play a direct role in Just War Theory, however.

Last Resort

At the time of the 2003 invasion, economic sanctions against Iraq were still in place. These sanctions were in response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Further economic pressure could not be applied.

Multiple diplomatic solutions (the Iraq Resolution, Resolution 1441, Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council, and finally the 48 hour demand of Saddam to leave the country) were attempted but each proved unsuccessful. All non-violent options were exhausted, and so the war was indeed one of last resort.

Conclusion

Based on all the usual criteria of jus ad bellum - principles of just cause, proportionality, reasonable chance of success, legitimate authority and public declaration, right intention, and last resort – it can be concluded that we were justified in this military action according to Just War Tradition. This conclusion holds regardless of the existence of WMDs.

From a “realist war theory” perspective, the invasion cannot be justified. If anything, the invasion violates the realpolitik “Pottery Barn rule” – you break it, you buy it. By eliminating Saddam Hussein’s regime, we metaphorically broke Iraq, dysfunctional that it was, and we ended up buying it over the next 8 years.

References

1. Draper, R. (2020). To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America into Iraq. Penguin Books.

2. Holmes, A. F. (2005). War and Christian Ethics. Baker Academic.

3. Ricks, T. E. (2006). Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Penguin Press.

Thomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory

Introduction

This post recites Thomas Aquinas’ just war theory as described in Summa Theologica I-II Q. 91 and 94, and II-II Q. 40-42. His jus ad bellum is explained as well as his tentative steps in developing jus in bello criteria. A psychological interpretation of the “good intentions” criteria is given, and finally a comparison with Aristotle’s “bottom up” approach to the ethics of warfare is made. All quotations from the Summa Theologica are taken from Holmes (2005).

Grounding JWT in Terms of Divine, Natural, and Human Laws

Thomas Aquinas sets up a “hierarchy of laws” as the foundation for the ethical evaluation of warfare. This hierarchy moves from the divine (Eternal Law), through natural laws, finally ending with concrete human laws.

The Eternal Law, also called Divine Reason or Divine Law, is the operation of Divine providence. Everything is subject to such law, and it is unchangeable and eternal. (ST I-II, Q. 91, Art 1)

Natural laws are the way rational creatures participate in the Eternal Law (ST I-II, Q. 91, Art 2). Natural laws are specifically applicable to rational animals, unlike Eternal Law which has universal applicability.

Human laws are needed because we do not fully participate in the dictates of Divine Reason (ST I-II, Q. 91, Art 3). Further, human laws do not have the inerrancy possessed by the demonstrated conclusions of the natural sciences.

Why then do we even need an Eternal Law? The Eternal law directs man towards his last end, eternal happiness, but this end is inproportionate to man’s rational faculty (ST I-II, Q. 91, Art 4). Further, conflicts in human law can and do occur, because of errors in judgement. Such conflicts cannot occur within Eternal Law. Finally, human law can neither forbid or punish all evil deeds; Divine Law fills this gap and is thus needed to forbid all sins.

Statement of Just Reasons to Go to War

It is not always sinful to initiate or wage war, according to Aquinas, and he posits three conditions that must be met to initiate a just war. (ST II-II, Q. 40, Art 1)

First, war must be called for by sovereign authority. “It is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior.”

Second, just cause is required – “those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” Aquinas uses specific examples given by Augustine – to avenge wrongs, to punish a nation for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore that which has been seized unjustly.

Third, belligerents must have good intentions. They must seek to advance the good, or to avoid evil at least. Examples of ill intentions include aggrandizement or cruelty.

Interlude: the “Dispassionate Warrior”

This third jus ad bellum criterion is a claim about the psychology of a justly acting warfighter: his goal is to “uplift the good,” perhaps in a dispassionate manner. Aquinas quotes Augustine who notes that “passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war” (ST II-II, Q. 40, Art 1). Aquinas continues, removing agency from the warfighter, stating that “to have recourse to the sword… by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment.”

Compare this (Kaurin, 2017) with the stance taken by one of the soldiers in Shakespeare’s Henry V: “If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.” Aquinas goes further, replacing relief of moral responsibility with a form of technocratic detachment.

Does the concept of a dispassionate warrior make sense? To successfully prosecute a war, a certain joie de guerre is required, a passion needed for accomplishing what must be done - and a source of distress for the warfighter when he realizes he has trouble turning it off. This is the very opposite of dispassion.

Just Conduct in War

Compared to his jus ad bellum, Aquinas’s jus in bello is considerably less developed. He addresses only a few aspects of what constitutes just conduct in war: the role of religious personnel, the use of ambushes, and the ethics of strife and sedition.

Is it lawful for priests and clerics to fight in a war? Aquinas answers (ST II-II, Q. 40, Art 2) in the negative, but in defense of this position, he quotes Gregory who uses a shepherd/wolf/sheepdog analogy: “The wolf comes upon the sheep, when any unjust and rapacious man oppresses those who are faithful and humble. But he who was thought to be the shepherd, and was not, leaveth the sheep, and flieth, for he fears lest the wolf hurt him, and dares not stand up against his injustice.”

Aquinas rejects this analogy, stating that participation in warfare is incompatible with the duties of priests and clerics, because warlike pursuits are tumultuous, hindering the mind from the contemplation of divine things, prayers for the people, etc. It is unbecoming for religious personnel to slay or shed blood, says Aquinas, and “it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry.” The proper way to resist an enemy of the flock is through “spiritual weapons”.

The only military tactic Aquinas mentions specifically is that of ambushes, which he states are not a form of deception but rather one of concealment. Thus, laying ambushes is a lawful activity when done in times of war. (ST II-II, Q. 40, Art 3)

Strife is described by Aquinas (ST II-II, Q. 41, Art 1) is a form of private war that is not declared by a sovereign. Because of this, it is unjust. Resistance against strife may however be without sin when it is done in self defense and with due moderation.

Sedition, the act of sewing dissent, is viewed by Aquinas (ST II-II, Q. 42, Art 1) as a sin as it is contrary to the unity of the multitude – the people of a city or kingdom, and it undermines the common good. Taken by itself, this stance would preclude both civil wars and wars of independence.

Conclusion

It is interesting to note how far Aquinas diverges from “the Philosopher” (Aristotle) on the issue of just war. Aristotle holds that it is proper for a man to engage in military training so as not to become the slave of other men, and for the same reason it is proper for the state to defend itself (Aristotle, Politics, Book 7). This is a bottom-up approach similar to what Frowe (2015) calls the “domestic analogy,” and is the opposite of Aquinas who grounds just war on Eternal, natural and human laws, and in which self defense is seen as political resistance against strife.

References

Aristotle (2020). Politics. William Ellis, trans. Independently published

Frowe, H. (2015). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Holmes, A. F. (2005). War and Christian Ethics. 2nd Edition. Baker Academic.

Kaurin, P. S. (2017). “Beyond the Band of Brothers: Henry V, Moral Agency, and Obedience”. Last retrieved on 28 March 2024 from https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/3/1/beyond-the-band-of-brothers-henry-v-moral-agency-and-obedience

Just War Tradition as Compared to Realism

Introduction

This paper outlines at an extremely high level the Just War Theory and the rival realist theory. Both theories broadly describe the conduct of warfare but differ in their details as well as their aims. These differences are enumerated, and finally a cursory analysis of both is presented.

Just War Tradition

The Just War Theory is fundamentally a list of rules for restraining war - it is a set of criteria that must be satisfied in order for a war to be considered "just." It is founded on the belief that war can be a moral undertaking. JWT is thus a framework or guide for when to resort to force and how use that force. The Just War Tradition is the doctrine tracing the evolution of JWT by Christian thinkers.

The criteria in the JWT are divided into three stages: before (jus ad bellum), during (jus in bello), and after (jus post bellum). Jus ad bellum are the criteria for when a nation-state should resort to war or use military force in general. These criteria include that the leader declaring war have legitimate authority, that is to be waged for just causes and good intentions, and (maybe) that there is a high probability of success. Once war has broken out, conduct should be governed by jus in bello criteria: there should be discrimination between military and civilian targets (principle of non-combatant immunity), attacks should be performed only out of military necessity, and that force be limited by some doctrine of proportionality. Just post bellum is apparently a recent addition to JWT, and it concerns justice once the guns have fallen silent. There doesn't seem to be a short and stable list of criteria. This will be addressed in the conclusion.

Realism

This presentation of realism follows Frowe Ch 5. The core idea of realism is embodied by Cicero's phrase "laws are silent in times of war" (silent enim leges inter arma). This means that war lies outside of both moral and legal boundaries, so the only proper constraints on warfare are that actions should advance national interests.

Realism can be divided into two camps: prescriptive realism and descriptive realism. The former claims that war should not be regulated, the latter that war cannot be regulated. Frowe criticizes descriptive realism by noting that individual combatants do follow strict moral codes - they fight honorably. Prescriptive realism falls short because both sides of a war share common interests in protecting their citizens, their infrastructure, and their heritage, or so Frowe claims.

Comparison

JWT and realism have distinct aims: JWT seeks to reduce the frequency and severity of warfare, whereas realism focuses attention on the successful completion of warfare, with the possible consequence that wars would be shorter in duration but more brutal.

JWT and realism, at this level of abstraction, both accept the reality of violence and that, under certain circumstances, its usage is permissible. Also, both seem isolated from the "domestic analogy" - individual self-defense and national self-defense are treated as independent issues, which they have been historically for most nations. So, on the issues of violence, admissibility of violence, and the "domestic analogy" they are similar.

Neither theory directly address the relation between warfare and the military virtue of courage alluded to by Hegel (Holmes, pp. 286-287). JWT would seem to be more compatible as both justice and courage are moral virtues.

While both theories address conduct during war, neither address the conditions under which war should be ended. What counts as peace, and whether the conditions for peace should set at the beginning or near the end of a war, is left unspecified.

Frowe Ch 5 doesn't mention whether realism has its own jus ad bellum - the inapplicability of rules during warfare does not imply that rules cannot function before a war begins. If there are realist rules governing the initiation of conflict, they would certainly include likelihood of success as well as something to the effect that the war must be in the nation's self-interest. Other than this, we would expect both JWT and realism to have similar criteria for initiating warfare.

Frowe also doesn't mention whether there is a realist jus post bellum.

The primary difference between JWT and realism is in the conduct of war, the jus in bello. JWT posits that rules are needed to restrain the scope of warfare - protect non-combatants, force should be applied according to some scale of proportional response, and actions must serve some military necessity. With realism, the gloves are off - rules are legitimate to the extent that they further successful completion of the war.

Analysis and Conclusions

At this level of abstraction, both JWT and realism come off as "straw man" theories, particularly realism. This is understandable given the source material used. The details of JWT will certainly be fleshed-out, and it would be interesting to see a final form of the doctrine of proportionality. Something sorely missing in JWT at this level is the relation of national interest to the initiation and pursuance of war. Also missing is the targeting of military actions - it is just assumed that that military actions should be aimed at the enemy.

It is also curious that jus post bellum - justice following the conclusion of war - is seen as an afterthought. Even a cursory study of history shows that wars recur frequently, and the reason they repeat is either laid-out in print, such as in Mein Kampf, or can be directly experienced when travelling, like when visiting south of the Mason-Dixon Line. As such, any theory that attempts to limit the scope and severity of warfare cannot afford to ignore jus post bellum.

References

Frowe, H. (2015). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Holmes, A. F. (2005). War and Christian Ethics. 2nd Edition. Baker Academic.