Perez 1

Ernesto Perez

Dr. Briones

English 1301-160

5 December 2022

The unjust lies of the Iraq War

The US invasion of Iraq is one of the most unpopular wars that the United States has

conducted. The war was initially justified under the pretext that the regime of Saddam Hussein

posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. The Bush administration claimed

that the Saddam regime had developed weapons of mass destruction and that they intended to use

these weapons against the United States. Furthermore, in an attempt to connect the Saddam

regime to the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration also claimed that the Saddam regime had ties

to Al Qaeda. This naturally led to a massive amount of support for the war in its initial stages.

Yet, as the war dragged on, the previous justifications for the war were found to be untrue. The

war and the occupation that followed continued until 2011 with most US troops being pulled out

from Iraq. The false justifications along with the weaponization of the public’s fear by the Bush

administration make it evident that the Iraq War was not justified.

While it may seem obvious to say that war is wrong, there are morally justifiable reasons

for a nation to go to war. This is primarily measured through “Just-war theory,” under just-war

theory, it is morally correct for a nation to go to war under various circumstances. When looking

at the Iraq war, it was an aggressive war with the US invading Iraq. Under just-war theory, it is

still justified for a nation to aggressively invade another nation. The requirements for this,

however, state that there must be both an imminent threat to its security, or if there is a severe

violation of human rights within the boundaries of a nation. As one article states, “A pre-emptive
 Perez 2

strike can be justified only when there is an imminent threat. To be afraid is not enough to justify

such a strike, but there must be a clear intention of an enemy to attack.”1 Under these conditions, it

may have been justified for the United States do defend its people from the threat that Iraq posed.

Once again however, when looking at the Iraq war, neither of these things are enough to justify

the American invasion of Iraq. While this imminent threat may have been enough to justify the

war had it been true, that does not make the war “just,” as one article states, “A war is not “just”

simply because the forces of good are arrayed against the forces of evil. Just war theory sees war

not as good, but as a lesser evil.”2

The perceived imminent threat that the Bush administration pointed to was the WMDs that

were supposedly developed by the Saddam regime. Saddam certainly had the intention to harm

the United States, yet he did not have the capacity to achieve this. Once the WMDs were not

found, however, the invasion was clearly not justified. The intelligence that stated that WMDs

were in Iraq, was not certain enough to justify the invasion either. While an argument can

certainly be made about how the perceived imminent threat was enough to justify the invasion,

this simply does not hold up. There are various nations in our current time who are openly

developing weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, many of these nations, such as Iran and

North Korea, are openly hostile to the United States. Would an invasion of these nations also be

necessary?

Additionally, while the United States was an aggressive nation in its invasion of Iraq,

would the Saddam regime not be justified in defending its sovereignty from a foreign aggressor?

1
Antic, Miljenko. “Iraq War (2003-): Was It Morally Justified?” Politička misao 46.1
(2009): 88–113. Print., pg.89
2 2
Porter, Elisabeth. “No Just War: Political Reflections on Australian Churches’
Condemnation of the Iraq War.” The Australian journal of politics and history 52.3
(2006): 471–488. Web., pg.475
 Perez 3

Under just-war theory, it is the duty of a government to defend its people from foreign aggressors

which in this case would be the United States. Knowing this, the Bush administration attempted to

frame the Iraq War as a defensive war in which the United States was defending its security.3

Therefore, the creation of WMDs and the connection to the 9/11 attacks were fabricated and were

vital to justifying the war. The justifications fell apart as soon they were found to be false.

Following this logic however, Iraqi government was justified in its defense against the United

States and the coalition. While Saddam may have been a ruthless tyrant towards his people, it was

still his duty to defend his nation against a foreign invader and that was something that he was

justified in. A likely comparison one article makes is that of Joseph Stalin, another brutal dictator

who terrorized his people, but who was justified in defending his nation against a foreign

aggressor during World War II. In this case, the article states, while Saddam may have been in the

wrong with all the crimes he committed against his people, it was right of him to defend the

sovereignty of Iraq.4

Another claim that was made by the Bush administration was in the connection that the

Saddam regime had with Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 attacks were still very fresh in the minds of the

American people, and to further the goals of American foreign policy, it was necessary to point

the finger at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. As the war progressed, it was found that there was no notable

connection between the Saddam regime and Al-Qaeda. This only made it clear that the connection

between the Saddam regime and Al-Qaeda was manufactured by the Bush administration by using

the publics fear of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. There was a massive amount of public support

for the Iraq War towards its initial stages. This support was due to it being seen as a war of
3
Masters, Daniel, and Robert M. Alexander. “Prospecting for War: 9/11 and Selling the
Iraq War.” Contemporary security policy 29.3 (2008): 434–452. Web. Pg.434

4
Antic, Miljenko. “Iraq War (2003-): Was It Morally Justified?” Politička misao 46.1 (2009):
88–113. Print. Pg.92
 Perez 4

retribution for the 9/11 attacks by the American public. Since the 9/11 attacks had been so recent,

one article argues, “Americans wanted to lash out at Iraq because they saw it as part of an “Arab-

Muslim world” to which the actual terrorist culprits also belonged.”5 Both before and after the

war, a sizable portion of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had some sort of connection to

the 9/11 attacks, with up sixty-eight percent believing there was a connection at one point.6 The

Iraq war was connected to the war on terror by the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam

Hussein’s regime had ties to Al-Qaeda. The connection was made to weaponize the public’s fear

of terrorism to support the war.

While the initial justifications of the war were manufactured, some still believed that the

removal of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein was enough to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

While the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime was certainly a good thing, it was not enough to

justify the war in Iraq. While Saddam was guilty of many massacres throughout his reign, most of

these occurred prior to the American invasion, and as one article states, “When Saddam Hussein

organized massacres of his own population, he had full backing of the USA.”7 Furthermore, most

of these massacres happened while Saddam had the support of the United States government. This

only shows that the Iraq war was not done to punish Saddam for his multiple human rights

violations. While it may be morally justified to punish Saddam for his human rights violations,

5
Liberman, Peter, and Linda Skitka. “Vicarious Retribution in US Public Support for War
Against Iraq.” Security studies 28.2 (2019): 189–215. Web., pg.190

6
Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq
War.” Political science quarterly 118.4 (2003): 569–598. Web. pg.572

7
Antic, Miljenko. “Iraq War (2003-): Was It Morally Justified?” Politička misao 46.1
(2009): 88–113. Print. pg.90
 Perez 5

this was clearly not the intent of the American invasion since, as previously stated, these events

had long passed by the time of the invasion.

With the removal of Saddam Hussein, the US then installed a more democratic

government in Iraq. Many would see this as something to celebrate. A brutal dictator being

removed, and his people being liberated sounds like something that most would see as a positive

thing. Despite this, the removal of a government by a foreign power is not something that is

welcomed in many places. Furthermore, the removal of Saddam Hussein’s government was not

something that was done by the United States out of concern for the Iraqi people’s well-being.

The regime change was more than likely done to replace Saddam’s hostile regime with a more

pro-US government that would cooperate with American interests in the Middle East. While some

would argue that the intentions of the American government are irrelevant to the results of the

removal of Saddam’s regime, the intentions of the American government are relevant when

justifying the war to the American public. Likewise, under this logic, would the US be justified in

removing dictators from other nations? There are multiple American allies that would be seen as

dictators under other circumstances. This would include many of the Middle Eastern monarchies

who rule their nations in a similar fashion to Saddam Hussein. Why then, has the United States

not changed these regimes and liberated the people of these nations like they did for Iraq?

Following the previous information, it is evident that the Bush administration terribly

misled the American public in its justifications of the war. With such a conflict being based on

what are lies, it is exceedingly difficult to justify the conflict. There were no weapons of mass

destruction, there was no connection to Al-Qaeda found and the situation in the middle east was

only made worse with the invasion of the United States. A good portion of Americans also

believed the lies that the government was feeding them and openly supported the war with Iraq.
 Perez 6

This is seen in studies that show that the American public believed the claims of the Bush

administration. Up to thirty-four percent of the American public believed that the United States

had actually found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the war.8 Furthermore, as previously

stated, up to sixty-eight percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had connections to

Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.9 Due to the United States being a democracy, a good amount of

public support was needed from the public to conduct the invasion of Iraq, as one article notes,

“Leaders in democracies differ from their authoritarian counterparts in the conduct of war in that

they require higher levels of consent from the populace to initiate and prolong wars.”10 The United

States also failed to achieve any notable goals and instead left Iraq with thousands of soldiers dead

and with an even larger threat in the form of even more extremist terrorist groups in Iraq.

To summarize, the US invasion of Iraq was a war that was morally unjustifiable. The

flimsy reasons that the Bush administration chose to go to war for, were lies that were used to

deceive the American public. The US government manipulated it is people by lying to them and

misleading them to support a war that the United States had no business fighting. As one article

accurately describes this, “war becomes peace, attack becomes 'pre-emptive defense', military

invasion becomes 'regime change', occupation becomes 'humanitarian intervention,”11 There was
8
Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq
War.” Political science quarterly 118.4 (2003): 569–598. Web., pg.572

9
Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq
War.” Political science quarterly 118.4 (2003): 569–598. Web., pg.572

10
Voeten, Erik, and Paul R. Brewer. “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential
Accountability.” The Journal of conflict resolution 50.6 (2006): 809–830. Web., pg. 809

11
Mral, Brigitte. “The Rhetorical State of Alert before the Iraq War 2003.” Nordicom
review 27.1 (2006): 45–62. Web., pg.61
 Perez 7

no imminent threat posed by the Saddam regime, and there were no WMDs in Iraq. There was

also no connection to Al-Qaeda and the Saddam regime, and the war did not contribute to the war

on terror. There was no valid reason for the United States to go to war with Iraq, and the war only

managed to further de-stabilize the Middle East. It is for these reasons that the US invasion of Iraq

is indefensible under any manner of scrutiny.

 Perez 8

Bibliography

Antic, Miljenko. “Iraq War (2003-): Was It Morally Justified?” Politička misao 46.1 (2009): 88–

113. Print.

Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.”

Political science quarterly 118.4 (2003): 569–598. Web.

Liberman, Peter, and Linda Skitka. “Vicarious Retribution in US Public Support for War Against

Iraq.” Security studies 28.2 (2019): 189–215. Web.

Masters, Daniel, and Robert M. Alexander. “Prospecting for War: 9/11 and Selling the Iraq

War.” Contemporary security policy 29.3 (2008): 434–452. Web.

Mral, Brigitte. “The Rhetorical State of Alert before the Iraq War 2003.” Nordicom review 27.1

(2006): 45–62. Web.

Porter, Elisabeth. “No Just War: Political Reflections on Australian Churches’ Condemnation of

the Iraq War.” The Australian journal of politics and history 52.3 (2006): 471–488. Web.

Voeten, Erik, and Paul R. Brewer. “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential

Accountability.” The Journal of conflict resolution 50.6 (2006): 809–830. Web.