The following ideas are meant to begin my personal discussion and will have more "meat" on them as the discussion unfolds. The "Principles of the Just War" came from the website to the right under Links.
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Was the Iraq War justifiable based on the above requirement? - A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Is the United States and those allies who are fought or are fighting in the Iraq War a legitimate authority? Did the final UN Security Council resolutions provide the legitimate authority that led to war? - A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Is the Iraq War a redress for wrongs suffered either for the United States or on behalf of the people of Iraq? Were the underlying and overlying intentions just to redress the injuries? - A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
Is the United States bogged down with an unreasonable chance of success or are the deaths and injuries incurred hopeless? - The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
Oh yes, to re-establish peace. Is the United States and its allies in the process of re-establishing a peace, perhaps a peace lost since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Is the goal of the transition to Iraq's constitutional soverignty (perhaps Democracy) a preferable to the peace that would have prevailed (or continued) if the war had not been fought? - The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
Is the violence of the war proportional to the injury suffered by the people of Iraq and the military of the United States and allies? - The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Is this statement true of the Iraq War?
In the end, how many of these justifiable means are necessary in order to call the Iraq War just or unjust?
