A Review of the US Invasion of Iraq (2003)

The war on terror has been underway for quite some time, in fact it’s been eleven long years since the Al Qaeda brought the Twin Towers and through that the entire US crashing down to its knees. Under this campaign initiated under the Bush administration many people have died, been captured and interrogated.  Even whilst Osama Bin Laden is now proclaimed dead by the US government, terrorism is still very much alive and the threat hangs ominously in the background of the international arena.

One of the most famous cases under the ‘war against terror’ is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which to this day remains to be a controversy in the eyes of many people. The foundation of the entire mission titled ‘Operation Iraqi freedom’ lay on two speculations, one being Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and the other being Saddam Hussein’s alleged connection in funding and assisting the Al Qaeda. This mission saw the involvement of countries such as the US, the UK, Australia, Spain and Poland, who all supplied troops for the invasion which was carried out from 19^th march to the 9^th April 2003. While President George Bush received a significant amount of support for this operation within the country, he also faced much opposition to it. Most notably from the UNSC and countries such as New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany and Canada, all long time allies of the US, who  urged the US government to use a more diplomatic approach to the problem.

The issue behind this fiasco is the legality of the invasion. The question remains, was it legal for the US to invade Iraq or not? To comprehensively answer this question it is necessary for us to start at the very roots, which is why an examination of the US constitution now becomes necessary. Accordingly  article 6 of the constitution states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land’ which basically means that any treaty signed and ratified by the US, shall become a supreme law of the land, not subject to violation. Due to this clause USA is legally bound to enshrine the provisions of all treaties it signs and ratifies, which in this sense makes the UN a body to which the US must conform to ( as the US has signed and ratified the UN charter). Therefore understandably, to go against the charter would be to go against America itself.

In fully analyzing every facet of this issue, a peek into the UN charter is also necessary. The UN charter clearly states that the only two instances when waging war is accepted is in the cases of:

1.  Self defense

2. When authorization to wage war is received from the UNSC

Accordingly the US invasion of Iraq would only have been legal if one or both of the above requirements were fulfilled.

In analyzing the first requirement, the question is if Iraq really and seriously posed a threat of imminent danger and harm to the US and its citizens. Pre-emptive defensive strikes is something somewhat different form this, as self defense is a counter measure, an act which is done only after something has been done against a party or in this case, the country in question. Now while it seems as if the US genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein aided the Al Qaeda and that Iraq intended on using these WMDs and provided countless accounts of evidence and intelligence supporting this claim, evidence points to the contrary. Former chief counter terrorism adviser to the National Security Council, Richard Clarke along with many other people believed that it had been George Bush’s intent to invade Iraq all along. The reasons as to why he would want to do this, is a mystery to none. To control the Iraqi oil fields, which happen to be the third largest in the world, would be a prize beyond any measure for any country. Furthermore by being in control of Iraq, USA would be able to set up a significant number of military bases in the country, allowing the US government to retain a dominant position in the country and also play an important role in shaping the domestic and foreign policies of neighboring countries as well. 
Therefore it can be clearly concluded that behind the talk of ending terrorism and bringing about international law and order in Iraq, there was most definitely an ulterior motive behind the invasion.

As mentioned before the mission was staged on two grounds, Iraq’s possession of WMDs and Saddam Hussein’s active role in supporting the Al Qaeda. To many in America it seemed that that the Bush administration was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, he was ridding the world of imminent danger and destruction. It would then come as a surprise to many when the invading forces and chief military personnel found neither trace of nuclear weaponry in Iraq nor any connection between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda. These were admitted in a report released by the CIA in 2005. Therefore when analyzing this in the scope of self defense, which is an accepted ground for waging war in the UN charter, this rationalization is inapplicable, thereby making this invasion illegal on the grounds of self defense.

Moving onto the second requirement, which is the authorization from the UNSC to wage war, it is much more straightforward and simple to evaluate the invasion on these grounds. As George Bush failed to convince the UNSC of his beliefs, USA did not receive authorization from the Security Council to carry out the invasion, thereby making the invasion illegal on the second count as well. Therefore it can be concretely stated that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in fact illegal, as it went against the UN charter and by violating this charter, officials of the highest level in America had unknowingly violated their own constitution too. Blinded by ambition and dishonest motives and convinced they were doing the right thing; the US government became law breakers of the highest order, as the constitution is in fact the supreme law of the land.

This war not only resulted in thousand of unnecessary deaths but also led to the further destabilization of the Middle East.  Many people also believed that the invasion would only result in the reinvigoration of terrorist efforts against the US and further weaken its relationships with other Arab countries. The invasion clearly was gross error on the part of the US government, nothing had been accomplished and it made the international community question the motives of the US government. While this served as a bitter lesson to the US, it also showed us that nothing is what it seems, there’s always a motive behind everything and most importantly that the truth is never the easiest thing to decipher.

photo source: http://www.corbisimages.com/