NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Aggression is the largest, if only, justification for war, according to the just-war theory outlined by Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. In performing an act of aggression what Walzer describes as the floodgates of war are opened. To enable us to label the Gulf War as just, we must look at both the causes of war, and, once engaged, the conduct of the combatants involved. Although closely linked, these two categories must be treated as discrete considerations.
A just cause does not automatically qualify a just conduct. Even if it was Iraqi aggression against the sovereign state of Kuwait that caused the gulf war, if the US lead coalitions conduct of the war was wrong or inhumane then the war in total can not be classed as just. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a textbook example of aggression, which supports the just-war theory. Of all the arguments for the war against Iraq, stopping aggression was the strongest platform. To ignore the Iraqi invasion would be to reward naked aggression. Iraq invaded Kuwait predominantly for economic gains via control of Kuwaiti oil fields.
Saddam needed to wipe his debt caused by years of war with Iran. The prestige of the Iraqi army had deteriorated considerably by failing to defeat an inferior Iranian army. Thus a victory against Kuwait would help boost their status and morale as well as emphasising Saddam's tyrannical regime. This would prevent any further coup attempts which were a growing threat to Saddam's autonomy. The UN charter allows only one cause of war; self defence. As Kuwait was an area of vital interest to the US this therefore gave justification to wage a war.
Along with aggression, the Iraqis were guilty of atrocities in Kuwait. While these acts fall under jus in Bello (justice in war), the fact that the atrocities were performed on the civilian population qualifies another justification for just war; humanitarian intervention. According to the just-war theory, an ally of a country is justified to intervene in a crisis when conditions exist that are morally and ethically inexcusable. Here again is the problem of judgment on the part of the intervening power.
But on the broad scale of the Kuwaiti invasion, the coalition's use of force was a humanitarian intervention because no one could argue that the systematic slaughter of civilian Kuwaitis was anything but evil. However, it can be argued that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was out of necessity for survival. Iraq had been in a war of attrition with Iran which had almost bankrupted them leading to an Iraqi request that OPEC raise oil prices to $ 25 per barrel from $ 17 per barrel. It was also alleged that Kuwait had been diagonally drilling into Iraqi oil fields and stealing their prime source of income.
After Kuwait refused to pay Iraq's demands of $ 2. 4 billion, Iraq had the right to take back what was rightfully theirs by ceasing control of Kuwait's oil fields. Another argument which follows is that the West were implementing double standards. There were many other acts of aggression going on in the world which were simply not countered. In Liberia, for instance, there were many instances of rebels terrorising the civilian population of the country and the US did not intervene. The difference between Iraq and Liberia is that the US would make economic gains through oil by invading Iraq whereas Liberia could offer them no gain albeit strategic or economic. However, no one should pretend that America's national interest for protecting access to the Persian Gulf because of oil was not a major factor in this war.
Even President Bush admitted that fact. To act as the principle police for the world would drain American resources, most importantly of which would be American lives. Little justification could be found to intervene on such a large scale if the projected outcome did not yield a reward for the victors. During the Gulf War, not only was the justification a just one as accepted by the collective conscience of the United Nations, but American interest was also at stake. Once the war started concentration can be shifted from justification for war to justice during war. After the initial invasion, diplomatic efforts were made to avoid fighting.
For six months, every opportunity was given to Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a war. Yet some critics claim that another major point in the just-war theory was not met. According to the theory, not only must a war be a response to aggression, but also be a last resort. Walzer points out that the concept of last resort would nullify any war as just. There can never be a true end to attempts to avoid war. In practice, a point is reached when it is decided that all reasonable attempts have been made to avoid conflict.
Once the decision is made, there will always be those who question if all possibilities had been explored. The Gulf war raised many such arguments. Even General Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his desire for more time to allow the blockade around Iraq to force Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. But with the prospect of a fortified country such as Iraq holding out for possibly years until the blockade finally worked, the coalition decided that the only answer was to remove Iraq from Kuwait by force.
Iraq was given every reasonable opportunity to leave but chose to remain in Kuwait. The coalition, therefore, fulfilled the just-war requirement of last resort and hostilities were soon to follow. Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war stood in stark contrast to that of the coalition. The coalition also followed the requirements of just-war behaviour which allows the killing of combatants despite the circumstances which brought them to bear. However, a large moral question hung over the killing of fleeing soldiers.
After realising their eminent defeat, the remains of the Iraqi army tried to flee back to Iraq. The US intercepted the main Iraqi convoy and disabled its ability to retreat leaving a large area of stationary targets. Killing these targets in terms of morality is wrong. However in times of war killing of an enemy soldier, even in retreat, is an acceptable act.
This is because there is no guarantee the soldiers will not simply regroup and attack if they are still alive. Also these soldiers had plundered Kuwait and were attempting to return with stolen goods. As part of just-war theory, the legalist paradigm states that aggression justifies two kinds of violent response a war of self-defence by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society. Because the war was still in effect at the time and just-war theory dictates that a member of international society can respond violently when enforcing laws, the killing of fleeing soldiers was a just act. Under a 1981 Executive Order, the U. S.
government is forbidden to participate in assassination. But during wartime, international law recognizes military commanders as legitimate targets. During the Gulf War, the assassination of Saddam Hussein was never revealed as an official goal but every location where he should have been was bombed. Most military analysts believed that if Hussein was killed, the war would have ended instantly.
It was easy for the American public to accept the effort because the leader in question was the enemy's. Hussein was located within the physical limits of the war. So if Hussein was killed in a bombing raid while in Baghdad, no moral question is raised. Similarly, if President Bush was killed in a bombing raid while visiting Iraq, no moral rule would be broken. Therefore, the idea of assassination being morally wrong loses all meaning during war because the political leaders are legitimate targets. The moral equivalency of the "assassin" is the same as that of the coalition soldier fighting in the desert.
It is the dysfunctional agreement during war: both sides try to kill the other side's forces, including the leaders. No act of war can really be seen as just and should be avoided at all costs. However, Iraq resorted to aggression and did not expect the world-wide response that it precipitated. Even after numerous attempts to settle the matter peacefully, Saddam Hussein made it clear that he was not going to withdraw from Kuwait. Once this was a certainty, the United Nations, the competent authority, understood that diplomatic means were futile. In order to repel the aggression and put an end to the human slaughter of Kuwaiti civilians, the American-led coalition was authorised and justified to wage war against Iraq.
After this war had been waged the coalition fought justly and succeeded. The coalitions conduct of the war was sound and raised no serious moral debates. Despite undertones of US economic gains, it does not change the underlying fact that action was justified.
Free research essays on topics related to: humanitarian intervention, invasion of kuwait, saddam hussein, gulf war, war against iraq
Research essay sample on War Against Iraq Invasion Of Kuwait
