Unjust Humanitarian Intervention in Iraq

The Just War Doctrine states that a war can be defined as “just” if there is a high probability of success. Based on this idea, I believe that the Iraq War was just in the sense that the United States successfully toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, I believe the definition of the Iraq War as a justified humanitarian intervention is fallacious, and the Iraq War was only just in the aspect of toppling the regime and not as a war undertaken to help distance others.

Based on last week’s lecture, the Right to Protect doctrine states that humanitarian intervention would be justified and a responsibility of states if there was a mass atrocity, such as genocide, mass murder, or ethnic killing. The Human Rights Watch adds on to the justification of humanitarian intervention by stating that only countries where there are ongoing or imminent atrocities qualify as targets for intervention. But, based on investigations of Saddam Hussein’s reign, Hussein had ended his state of terror a decade prior to the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003. This being said, according to the Human Rights Watch and Right to Protect doctrine, there should have been no intervention by the United States whatsoever. However, Teson argues that due to the American exceptionalism ideal, the United States has a duty to take down terrorists and spread democracy, regardless of the international policies because the ends justify the means.

I do not agree with his argument that the United States has the right to disregard the process in order to spread democracy by toppling other governments as a way to protect the idea of democracy domestically. As Nardin states, if we disregard the system and policies that determine the legitimacy of a war or intervention, then the United States is no longer following and protecting democracy by cheating the system it is working so hard to protect. If a powerful nation, such as the United States, that even holds a spot in the Security Council disregards the rules, other countries could potentially abuse their power and intervene for any ulterior motive, and justify it as “humanitarian intervention”. If countries begin discounting the process, how can there ever be a lawful international realm.

Furthermore, if the United States and other countries continue to use the idea of ends justifying the means in regards to justifying humanitarian intervention, then there really seems to be no future for humanitarian intervention. By labeling Iraq a humanitarian war, especially after the Right to Protect doctrine and Human Rights Watch specifically deny the notion of Iraq needing humanitarian intervention in 2003, flaws the whole philosophy and intent of a true and legitimate humanitarian intervention for those states who truly needed the outside assistance such as Darfur. The Iraq War has definitely tested the definition and rationalization for humanitarian intervention and the only solution that I see right now is for the United States to recognize its fault in Iraq, learn from the mistakes and develop a new mentality and policy for future humanitarian interventions.