Just War
3235 Words
13 Pages
After the events that occurred in the United States in September of 2001, its government started to mobilize in order to fight terrorism and be able to give its citizens the security they expected. In order to do so, Bush’s administration, after a series of negotiations with Iraq and the UN, decided to invade the Middle East country in an effort to end terrorism and make the world, and mostly America, a safe place. However, it has been broadly discussed whether this war was in the best interest of the United States and the Americans, or did only benefit a few elite groups while not being able to solve the issues it claimed it was going to, particularly in Iraq. Also, the war against Iraq is discussed to have been started or not as a “just war”,
…show more content…
When is it rational for a country to start a violent conflict, and under what particular set of circumstances this happens is something worth analyzing in order to define whether the war between the United States and Iraq can be called “just”. The criteria to consider a war just or not is based on some points that say when a war can be started without any moral restraints. Some of the most important points when relating them to the conflict being analyzed are “War can only be waged by a legitimate government or authority”, “War can only be waged as a last resort, after all other alternatives have been exhausted”, “War must have a reasonable chance of succeeding” and “War can be used to defend a stable political order or a morally just cause against a real threat” (Kaufman, p. 101). Using these points, along with the work of some experts, it is possible to determine if the American government acted following the “Just War” …show more content…
As explained by Cushman, it was “justified on the basis of protecting the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's oppressive government and shielding the world from dangerous weapons in the hands of a tyrannous regime”, meaning that “Iraq required intervention” (Cushman, p. 404). The author understands that the war did not go as hoped, and that the existence of weapons of massive destruction and links with terrorism was not a fact, but he believed that the suffering of the people to Hussein’s regime was enough to consider it a “just war”. In fact, the author asks to some comprehension of Bush’s actions despite his many mistakes, since it could have made a difference for these innocent people, although the results were not the expected for them. Moreover, the war with Iraq follows some other criteria in order to be considered “just”. As it has already been explained, a “just war” can only be started when a government or authority is legitimate and there is a real chance of defeating the opponent. The United States, as it has been the case since the 18th Century, has a strong and legitimate government, and giving the really strong military power it has and the absence of any allies by its opponent, the chances of winning the war were really
When is it rational for a country to start a violent conflict, and under what particular set of circumstances this happens is something worth analyzing in order to define whether the war between the United States and Iraq can be called “just”. The criteria to consider a war just or not is based on some points that say when a war can be started without any moral restraints. Some of the most important points when relating them to the conflict being analyzed are “War can only be waged by a legitimate government or authority”, “War can only be waged as a last resort, after all other alternatives have been exhausted”, “War must have a reasonable chance of succeeding” and “War can be used to defend a stable political order or a morally just cause against a real threat” (Kaufman, p. 101). Using these points, along with the work of some experts, it is possible to determine if the American government acted following the “Just War” …show more content…
As explained by Cushman, it was “justified on the basis of protecting the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's oppressive government and shielding the world from dangerous weapons in the hands of a tyrannous regime”, meaning that “Iraq required intervention” (Cushman, p. 404). The author understands that the war did not go as hoped, and that the existence of weapons of massive destruction and links with terrorism was not a fact, but he believed that the suffering of the people to Hussein’s regime was enough to consider it a “just war”. In fact, the author asks to some comprehension of Bush’s actions despite his many mistakes, since it could have made a difference for these innocent people, although the results were not the expected for them. Moreover, the war with Iraq follows some other criteria in order to be considered “just”. As it has already been explained, a “just war” can only be started when a government or authority is legitimate and there is a real chance of defeating the opponent. The United States, as it has been the case since the 18th Century, has a strong and legitimate government, and giving the really strong military power it has and the absence of any allies by its opponent, the chances of winning the war were really