The United States was Correct to Invade Iraq in 2003 The United States’ decision to declare war on Iraq in 2003 is not uncontroversial. Despite of Bush administration’s consideration and explanation, a lot of people and organization claimed that they strongly oppose the decision because of several reasons. For example, Saddam Hussein’s regime did not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or the UN inspectors could have the proofs to support the first assumptions if they have given more time. Those statements are true and acceptable, but the resort to war was still justified. Subsequently, this paper will answer the question why the United States was still correct to attack Iraq. To clarify, the term ‘correct’ in this paper is defined
…show more content…
The first just cause is that the Iraqis did not have the right and ability to be self-determining. A nation or people have the prima facie right of collective self-determination. They do not have any obligation to act in a particular way in order to obtain this right. But, in the other hand, “when a people’s ability to be self-determining is ruthlessly suppressed, with no reasonable hope that the people themselves can overthrow the tyranny, this generally provides third party states with a sufficient just cause.” This argument raised a few oppositions, stating that interfering in a people’s process of self-determination is not a perfect example of a sufficient just cause. Nevertheless, this argument is inadequate when people are extremely oppressed because they are minimally or not engaged in self-determination process: “when people are severely oppressed there is a significant lowering of the bar with respect to what just causes count as sufficient” (Mellow, …show more content…
In Iraq, the governing regime was repressive and severe: “Furthermore, the oppression involved massive systematic individual human rights violations — killing, gassing, torture, rape, forced displacement, campaigns of terror, and severe religious restrictions. The numbers killed, maimed, tortured and displaced, though imprecise, are staggering — at the very minimum involving hundreds of thousands in a population of twenty-two million” (Stern, 2004). Furthermore, according to the reports by Max Van Der Stoel, Special U.N. Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, “Iraq was interfering the independent religious practice of the Shi’ite community, continuing internal deportations of ethnic Kurds, violations of the rights to food and health, violations of the rights of the child . . .” (1999). He also mentioned the execution of religious leaders and the unwillingness of the government to work with the United Nation or to participate at the food-for-oil program, which escalated Iraqis’
The first just cause is that the Iraqis did not have the right and ability to be self-determining. A nation or people have the prima facie right of collective self-determination. They do not have any obligation to act in a particular way in order to obtain this right. But, in the other hand, “when a people’s ability to be self-determining is ruthlessly suppressed, with no reasonable hope that the people themselves can overthrow the tyranny, this generally provides third party states with a sufficient just cause.” This argument raised a few oppositions, stating that interfering in a people’s process of self-determination is not a perfect example of a sufficient just cause. Nevertheless, this argument is inadequate when people are extremely oppressed because they are minimally or not engaged in self-determination process: “when people are severely oppressed there is a significant lowering of the bar with respect to what just causes count as sufficient” (Mellow, …show more content…
In Iraq, the governing regime was repressive and severe: “Furthermore, the oppression involved massive systematic individual human rights violations — killing, gassing, torture, rape, forced displacement, campaigns of terror, and severe religious restrictions. The numbers killed, maimed, tortured and displaced, though imprecise, are staggering — at the very minimum involving hundreds of thousands in a population of twenty-two million” (Stern, 2004). Furthermore, according to the reports by Max Van Der Stoel, Special U.N. Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, “Iraq was interfering the independent religious practice of the Shi’ite community, continuing internal deportations of ethnic Kurds, violations of the rights to food and health, violations of the rights of the child . . .” (1999). He also mentioned the execution of religious leaders and the unwillingness of the government to work with the United Nation or to participate at the food-for-oil program, which escalated Iraqis’