Just War Doctrine And The Gulf Conflict Essay -- essays research paper

however War Doctrine and the Gulf ConflictIn evaluating US involvement in the Iraq action in terms of the JustWar Doctrine - jus ad bellum and jus in bello - it is my opinion that the USadhered to the Doctrine in its entirety. The US acted justly both in itsentering into the Gulf encounter (jus ad bellum) and in its conduct while in theconflict (jus in bello). To support this opinion I will individually addressthe co move that constitute the Just War Doctrine and show how US participationin the Iraq war abstained from violating the tenets of either co-part.Jus Ad BellumJus Ad Bellum, the justness of entering into conflict consists of six primarytenets legitimate authority, just arrive at, proportionality, right intention, hazard of success, and last resort.1. Legitimate Authority - Only those of legitimate authority may justly transmit its country into war. This tenet disqualify revolutionaries, radicalsand/or subversives who seek to justly initiate war. War is to be the decisi onsof the head of state and is to be subject to their guidance.2. Just causal agent - A just conflict may not be initiated void of just cause.This tenet disallows justifying war for the purpose of economic gain, landacquisition, or strategical position. If war is to be justly initiated just cause,usually humanitarian, must first exist.3. Right Intention - This relates to the tenet of just cause. Justcause must be followed by right intention. It would be unjust seek a goaldevoid of the just cause.4. Proportionality - Also in relation to just cause is the tenet ofproportionality. Proportionality must exist between the cause and the decisionto go to war. For country (a) to initiate a total war with country (b) becauseof a minor violation that country (b) was responsible for would beunproportional and unjust. There is not cause enough to warrant country (b)being subjected to a total war.5. discover of Success - War must be initiated with a chance of success.It would be unjust to lead people into a war they have no chance of winning. Itwould more just to bow to superiority and fight another day than to commit to apolicy of suicide.6. Last Resort - This is probab... ... possible.Though the US possess immense destructive capabilities they assiduous onlythat necessary to get the job done. The most effective aspect of the coalitionforces was their air assault. The various jet-fueled fighters and bombers theUS employed were more than capable of turning Iraq quite literally into aparking lot. They did not. Instead bombing occurred only where enemy forces orenemy armament was surmise to be stored. Civilian areas were not fired uponunless a curse, such as an anti-aircraft gun, was placed in a civilian area,and in these instances pin-point missiles were used to eliminate the threat withas little destruction to the surrounding area as possible. This adheres to themoral means doctrine which finds indiscriminate weapons unjust. Though the USwas authorized to use some(p renominal) and all means they employed nothing more than what wasnecessary to complete the job adequately.As I stated above UN Resolution 678 left the gate wide open to possibleviolations of International Law. Despite this US went beyond the call of dutyto assure that its role in the Gulf conflict was just. Risking their have wellbeing, US pilots often gav