|
Desert Storm Memorial
![]() |
|
Desert Storm History During the 3 months of Operation Desert Storm, 271 American service personnel died. Whether you subscribe to just-war theory or not, the Gulf War was a moral victory for America. Using the just-war theory outlined by Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, the American-led coalition against Saddam Hussein's forces not only prove his actions as unjustified, but also legitimizes the response by the United Nations' coalition force. |
| Just-war theory, broken into its two main categories, tries to dictate the justification for going to war and, once engaged, the conduct of the combatants involved. Although closely related, these two categories are treated as discrete considerations. A questionable cause does not qualify questionable conduct. Applied to the Gulf War, both considerations were ignored by the Iraqi government as well as the Iraqi soldiers. |
| The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was
a textbook example of aggression, according to the very definition given
in just-war theory. Once Iraq invaded, the coalition made enough attempts
to settle the matter without resorting to war thus satisfying the "last
resort" requirement. After diplomatic efforts failed, the coalition received
permission from the competent authority of the United Nations to use force
against the Iraqi army. Finally, to add to the numerous reasons that the
Gulf War was just, humanitarian intervention was necessary as a result
of the atrocities performed against the Kuwaiti civilians.
After the war started, the concentration shifted from justification for war to justice during war. Here, too, Iraq failed to adhere to just-war principles. Iraq's treatment of prisoners of war stood in stark contrast to that of the coalition. |
![]() |
| The coalition also followed the
requirements of just-war behavior which allows the killing of combatants
despite the circumstances which brought them to bear. Finally, the coalition
did not participate in individual assassination nor nuclear war, the latter
of which would violate the exclusion of non-combatants from hostilities.
At every opportunity, the coalition followed the requirements for a just
war before and during the Persian Gulf War.
Aggression On August 2, 1990, the Iraqi army crossed two lines. The first line was the border separating the two sovereign countries of Iraq and Kuwait. Internationally recognized as a legitimate state since 1961, Kuwait was overrun by the large Iraqi military. The second line was the biggest qualifier for a just war against Iraq: Aggression. In performing this act of aggression, Iraq unleashed the floodgates of war. Because of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the international coalition was morally forced to wage war. Of all the arguments for the war against Iraq, stopping aggression was the strongest platform. Even though oil was a central issue, the coalition required Iraq to give back the property, land, and people seized in the invasion. To ignore the Iraqi invasion would be to reward "naked aggression" (Blonston 1991). Competent Authority By what authority did the coalition use to wage war against Iraq? Many critics in the early stages of the war asked this question which was soon answered. Once Congress backed President Bush, competent authority was fulfilled because the ruling body, representing the American nation, provided the authority to wage war against another sovereign country. But opponents still argued that proper authority does not reside in the country that simply agrees as a whole to fight. If the competent authority that authorized the Gulf War was the American Congress, then the United States could be accused of aggression or intervention. But there was a higher power. As much as the world would like to believe that the Gulf War was the United States against Iraq, that was not the case. While it is true that America was the leader during the crisis, the entire coalition effort was sanctioned by the United Nations. This body of leaders, an international assembly of representatives, provided the competent authority to wage war against Iraq. Any more justification than that, if possible, would be hard to come by. Regardless, there was more.
|
![]() |
Humanitarian Intervention
Along with aggression, the Iraqis were guilty of atrocities in Kuwait. While these acts fall under jus in bello (justice in war), the fact that the atrocities were performed on the civilian population qualifies another justification for just war: humanitarian intervention. According to just-war theory, an ally of a country is justified to intervene in a crisis when conditions exist that are morally and ethically inexcusable. Here again is the problem of judgment on the part of the intervening power. But on the broad scale of the Kuwaiti invasion, the coalition's use of force was a humanitarian intervention because no one could argue that the systematic slaughter of civilian Kuwaitis was anything but evil. |
The factors listed above point towards a just war in the Gulf. Opponents on both sides of the war tried to use the theory in favor of their beliefs. Final determination depends on which argument is stronger using the same theory. Much of the accusations centered around President Bush's hypocrisy in sending troops in defense of Kuwait. If Bush was standing on a moral platform and committed troops on principle alone, why did he withhold 2100 Marines off the coast of Liberia in 1990 when civilians were being slaughtered by rebels? Why did he send Scowcroft to China to recommend continued trade advantages even after the massacre of students in Tiananmen Square? Why did he send the secretary of state to Moscow and continue to deal with Gorbachev even after bloody repression in the Baltics (Broder 1991)? These are tough questions that point to just one answer. The United States, or any world power, could find a war to fight at any time that would qualify under the just-war theory. So who decides to commit military power and under what conditions? The answer is simply that the government decides which just wars are in the best interest for their countries to fight. No one should pretend that America's national interest for protecting access to the Persian Gulf because of oil was not a major factor in this war. Even President Bush admitted that fact. To act as the "principle police" for the world would drain American resources, most importantly of which would be American lives. Little justification could be found to intervene on such a large scale if the projected outcome did not yield a reward for the victors. During the Gulf War, not only was the justification a just one as accepted by the collective conscience of the United Nations, but American interest was also at stake. To pretend otherwise would be the ultimate hypocrisy.
Thus, the Gulf War, a justified and moral victory for the American-led
coalition, proved once again that even against an enemy who fails to abide
by the rules of war, a moral force can overcome an immoral enemy.
| Front Door |
|
|
Vietnam Memorial |
| Desert Storm Memorial | Sponsor Page | Dedication Page | About me |