The Irrational Invasion of Iraq: A Critical Examination of the Unjustified Action and Lack of

Legitimate Justification

Julia Bavetta

Political Science 2532G: International Law and Order

March 31, 2023

 On March 19th, 2003, President of the United States George W. Bush addressed the

Nation from the oval office, announcing that U.S. forces were beginning military operations in

Iraq. “On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance

to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are [the] opening stages of what will

be a broad and concerted campaign.”i Invading Iraq under the guise that Saddam Hussein, the

Iraqi president, was hiding weapons of mass destruction (or "WMDs"), which would pose a

threat to their respective countries if Al-Qaeda obtained them, the United States ignored the

advice of many allies and the wishes of bordering states.However, as we now know, Bush’s

reasoning for the invasion was proven false, as there were no WMD and the relations between

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda was proven to be false.ii The United States established miliary

action in Iraq without presenting justifiable cause. Regardless of the fact, the United States

achieved successful mission in capturing Saddam Hussein. It is important to acknowledge that

the United States used non-verified information regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass

destruction and used it to propagate the notion that Iraq was a threat to America and other

countries, as Iraq was providing the weapons and resources to the terrorist group prior to the Iraq

war. These tactics led to the invasion of Iraq on the pretense of cause.

As there have been many debates over the legality or illegality of the 2003 Iraq war, the

purpose of this paper is to examine the unjustness and unjustness behind the 2003 invasion of

Iraq while giving an examination of the 'just cause' behind it. This essay will explore the United

States and their decisions to invade Iraq in terms of just war theory while seeking answers to the

following questions. First, what are the critical factors in determining whether a war is just,

discussing jus ad bellum and the just cause concept? Was the 2003 invasion of Iraq a just war?

The essay will answer the questions by analyzing the proper procedures that must be met for a
war to be considered while using the 2003 Iraq war as its leading example. I will then conclude

whether the 2003 Iraq war was just. In doing so, I will mainly argue that the United States’

invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a just war.

This paper will be divided into three outlined sections. The first section will explain the

factors determining whether a war is just, contextualizing the concept of jus ad bellum,

specifically on the demands of its main normative principle, just cause. The following portion

will encompass an in-depth account of the invasion, making note of the events leading up to the

war and how the Bush administration fooled the population into believing the false narrative of

his central premise for the war. The third and last section will consider the opposing argument:

according to Bush’s claim, the United States and its surrounding states are in danger, as there

were relationships between Iraq and the terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda. Under the Bush

administration, the Justice Department accused American forces and their allies of being justified

in occupying Iraq in 2003. It claimed there was just cause for doing so. This paper challenges

that claim collectively.

JUS AD BELLUM

Determining whether a war is just can be a very complex and challenging matter, as there

is no straight answer. Jus ad bellum, or just war theory, refers to the criteria and conditions under

which States may resort to war or use armed force to be just.iii Several vital factors need to be

occurring for the war to be considered ‘just.’ These include the “war, having just cause, being a

last resort, being declared by proper authority, possessing the right intention, having a reasonable

chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.” iv If the whole criteria can

be proven to be accurate, then the war is, in fact, just. According to the Encyclopedia of War and

Ethics, “self-defense is the obvious rationale for going to war. However, the principle of just
cause has been extended to cover defense of another state against aggression, intervention to

protect potential victims of massacre, assisting secessionists, and even pre-emptive strikes

against potential aggressors.” stated in 1996.v It is noted that when there is no just cause, there is

no just war, making it a fundamental requirement in order to proceed with a war, and under just

war theory, all criteria needs to be met. As the United States failed to prove that there was a just

cause for entering the Iraq war of 2003 before entering the conflict, that war was indeed unjust.

THE INVASION

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United Nations was working towards the disarming

weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.vi On the 8th of November in 2002, the United Nations

Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, demanding Iraq to allow inspectors

from the United Nations to have access to Iraq’s facilities in order to conclude whether weapons

and materials were being manufactured in Iraq.vii Ensuring that, “Iraq will ensure that no

proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the

presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.”viii With

consequences if Iraq does not comply and agree with the requests and requirements.ix However,

the United States had other plans. Four months later, on March 10th, 2003, the United States, the

United Kingdom, and Spain drafted a second resolution signing themselves, because according

to the United States, Iraq was accused of breaching the UN Resolution 1441.x Which was a

decision that the United Nations Security Council did not approve.

The United States’ decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was based on several jurisdictions:

concerns about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq’s relations with terrorist organizations, and

human rights abuses. The primary justification, however, were the concerns about Saddam

Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and the concern that Iraq had a nuclear
development program. The Bush administration tried to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda; however, it could

never be proven. Bush tried to claim that “Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda’ work in concert,’” and

Iraq had “longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist organizations, and there are [al Qaeda]

terrorists inside Iraq.”xi Yet, the Bush administration persisted in their efforts to persuade the

country that with Iraq being in possession of weapons of mass destruction posed a grave threat to

the American people’s lives. Which led to the widespread belief and turst in President Bush

during that period.

There were numerous reasons for the invasion of Iraq, including the claim that Iraq

possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, that could pose a threat to

the United States and its allies. As president Bush stated, “By seeking weapons of mass

destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to

terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.”xii However, many investigations and

reports found no evidence to support the war, making it illegal. In February 2003, Dr. Mohamed

El-Baradei from the IAEA conducted an inspection which was concluded that there was no

evidence which pointed to any nuclear-related activities in Iraq.xiii From three months of the

ongoing investigation, IAEA conducted two-hundred eighteen nuclear investigations at one-

hundred forty-one different sites, including interviews with relevant Iraqi personnel, confirming

that there is “found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons

programme in Iraq.”xiv The absence of evidence for Iraq’s possession of nuclear weapons, are

criticized for the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Many argue that the invasion was based on

faulty intelligence and that the Bush administration manipulated that evidence to justify the war.

The lack of evidence also raised questions on the legitimacy of the war and the credibility of the

United States government. This proves that the United States jumped to conclusions and invaded
Iraq without reasonable cause and solid evidence, resulting in a long and damaging war,

attempting to justify its actions on false claims.

NEOCONSERVATIVE VIEW

Though many believe the 2003 Iraq war was not just, the neoconservative view argues

the opposite. The neoconservative view on the 2003 invasion was one that strongly supported the

Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime. Many

neoconservatives believe that the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy had just

cause to invade Iraq, causing the 2003 Iraq war under the pretext of preventive war for several

reasons. Some of the concerns encompass Iraq’s purported possession of nuclear weapons and

the potential threat that Iraq could be a part of with the terrorist groups to target the United States

and their allies. The Bush administration argued that Iraq had an active program to develop

nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons which could be used against the United States.

President Bush argued that Iraq’s possession of these weapons was clear. A danger to the United

States, stating, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking

gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,”xv Neoconservatives argued that

preventive war was necessary to protect the United States and its allies from the potential threat

posed by Iraq in the future. They argued that waiting until Iraq had developed and used WMDs

would be too late, and that preventive war was the only way to ensure the United States was safe.

Micheal Walzer claims that “because of the special nature of WMD, a preventive war is

justified.”xvi He also claims that preventive war maintains a balanced distribution of power “to

stop what is thought to be an even distribution of power from shifting into a relation of

dominance and inferiority.”xvii Richard B. Miller, states, “The core idea is that states have the

right to attack other states to stop the proliferation of WMD, especially those weapons that would
enable a state to carry out a surprise and devastating attack.”xviii Based on the ideas of preventive

war, an argument could be made in favour of the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.

According to the neoconservative, the Bush administration is justified in invading Iraq on the

grounds of preemptive warfare, due to Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction

and the potential risks posed by Iraq in the future. However, the validity of these arguments has

been widely debated and criticized, particularly in light of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq after

the invasion.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the critical factors determining whether a war is just revolves around the

principle of jus ad bellum and the just cause concept. Jus ad bellum provides a set of criteria that

a country must meet before going to war on another country. Also, the just cause concepts

emphasize the moral grounds for going to war. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is heavily debated on

whether it was a just war. While a neoconservative viewpoint would lead you to believe that the

invasion was a precaution, that does not mean it is just. There was a lack of proper justification,

and it did not meet the criteria for jus ad bellum, making it an unjust war. Not only did the Bush

administration rush into the war, but they also tried to cover their tracks when there was no

concrete proof that Saddam Hussein was targeting the United States and allies, resulting in many

Americans lacking trust in the United States government. Ultimately, the determination of a just

war remains subjective and often depends on the individual’s interpretation of the principles and

circumstances surrounding the conflict.

Notes
i
George W Bush , “President Bush Addresses the Nation,” National Archives and Records
Administration (National Archives and Records Administration, March 19, 2003),
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html#:~:text=On%20my
%20orders%2C%20coalition%20forces,a%20broad%20and%20concerted%20campaign.
ii
Has Binnendijk, Bonny Lin, and David C. Gompert, “The U.S. Invasion of Iraq, 2003,” in What
America and China Can Learn (RAND Corporation, 2014), pp. 161-174,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.21, 161
iii
International Committee of the Red Cross, “What Are Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello?,”
International Committee of the Red Cross, November 12, 2015,
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0.
iv
Alexander Moseley, “Just War Theory,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed March
2023,https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/#:~:text=2.-,The%20Jus%20Ad%20Bellum
%20Convention,proportional%20to%20the%20means%20used.
v
Ian Holliday, “When Is a Cause Just?,” Review of International Studies 28, no. 3 (July 2002): pp. 557-
575, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210502005570, 560.
vi
United Nations Council, in Resolution 1441 (2002) (New York: UN, 2002)
vii
United Nations Council, in Resolution 1441
viii
United Nations Council, in Resolution 1441
ix
United Nations Council, in Resolution 1441
x
B. Gregory Marfleet and Colleen Miller, “Failure after 1441: Bush and Chirac in the UN Security
Council,” Foreign Policy Analysis 1, no. 3 (November 2005): pp. 333-360,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00015.x, 339.
xi
Louis Fisher, “Deciding on War against Iraq: Institutional Failures,” Political Science Quarterly 118,
no. 3 (2003): pp. 389-410, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2003.tb00399.x, 399.
xii
Charles V. Peña, “Iraq: The Wrong War,” Insight Turkey 6, no. 1 (2004): pp. 30-57,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26328853, 39
xiii
Mohamed El-Baradei, “The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update,” IAEA (IAEA, March
6, 2003), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/status-nuclear-inspections-iraq-update.
xiv
El-Baradei, "The Status," International Atomic Energy Agency.
xv
“'We Cannot Wait for The Smoking Gun',” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media, October 8,
2002), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/08/iraq.usa.
xvi
Richard B. Miller , “Justifications of the Iraq War Examined,” Ethics & International Affairs 22, no.
1 (April 10, 2008): pp. 43-67, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2008.00129.x.
xvii
Michael Walzer , Just and Unjust Wars (Basic Books, 1977), 76.
xviii
Miller, “Justifications,”

Bibliography

Bush , George W. “President Bush Addresses the Nation.” National Archives and Records
Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, March 19, 2003.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html#:~:text=On
%20my%20orders%2C%20coalition%20forces,a%20broad%20and%20concerted%20campaign.

El-Baradei, Mohamed. “The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update.” IAEA. IAEA, March 6,
2003. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/status-nuclear-inspections-iraq-update.
Fisher, Louis. “Deciding on War against Iraq: Institutional Failures.” Political Science Quarterly 118,
no. 3 (2003): 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2003.tb00399.x.

Gompert, David C., Has Binnendijk, and Bonny Lin. “The U.S. Invasion of Iraq, 2003.” Essay. In
What America and China Can Learn, 161–74. RAND Corporation, 2014.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.21.

Gregory Marfleet, B., and Colleen Miller. “Failure after 1441: Bush and Chirac in the UN Security
Council.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1, no. 3 (November 2005): 333–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00015.x.

HOLLIDAY, IAN. “When Is a Cause Just?” Review of International Studies 28, no. 3 (July 2002):
557–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210502005570.

International Committee of the Red Cross. “What Are Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello?” International
Committee of the Red Cross, November 12, 2015. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-
jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0.

Luban, David. “Prefaces and Postscripts: Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars Today.” Walzer and War,
2020, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41657-7_2.

Luban, David. “Prefaces and Postscripts: Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars Today.” Walzer and War,
2020, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41657-7_2.

Miller , Richard B. “Justifications of the Iraq War Examined.” Ethics & International Affairs 22, no. 1
(April 10, 2008): 43–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2008.00129.x.

Moseley, Alexander. “Just War Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 2023.
https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/#:~:text=2.-,The%20Jus%20Ad%20Bellum
%20Convention,proportional%20to%20the%20means%20used.

Peña, Charles V. “Iraq: The Wrong War.” Insight Turkey 6, no. 1 (2004): 30–57.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26328853.

United Nations Council. “Security Council S/RES/1441 (2002) - United Nations.” In Resolution 1441
(2002). New York: UN, 2002.

Walzer , Micheal. Just and Unjust Wars . Basic Books, 1977.

“'We Cannot Wait for The Smoking Gun'.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 8, 2002.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/08/iraq.usa.