Was America's invasion of Iraq legal?

Answer 1

No, it was not. The invasion of Iraq was a complete breach of international law. To hold international law in regard, one must read the United Nations Charter. The Charter is of serious importance because, by the end of the Second World War, people all over the world became conscious that being in two world wars within the span of one lifetime was just too insufferable.

The United States was among the first to sign the charter of the United Nations. Now, article 6 of the US constitution confers that any treaties signed by the US become part of the "supreme law of the land". In other words, ever since the US signed the UN charter back in 1945, the nation has now become legally bound by international and domestic law to act upon all articles of the charter of the United Nations. This is why studying the charter was very important, because a violation of the charter is also a violation of the US constitution.

So, what does the UN charter say about war? First of all, the charter expresses disapproval of and forbids the use of force by any nation. Participating in armed conflict is illegal in all but two situations; thus, ironically, some exceptions are allowed. The first exception is that a country is deemed able to defend itself if it is attacked by another country. The logic of this self defense exception is clear. The second exception is that a country may legally use force of any kind if the UN Security Council authorizes it. The Security Council system was created in order to discourage a rogue nation from using violence as a means of achieving its own interests, without consideration for the rest of the international community. So if we were to examine the first exception, self defense, was the US led invasion of Iraq a justifiable protective act of self defense?

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W Bush and senior components of his administration continually told the American public that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do for multiple reasons. The two most important ones being that, initially, (former) Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was associated to and had close ties with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, (actively backing and sheltering Al-Qaeda terrorists). This was ultimately false. A careful review and analysis by the 9/11 commission report included that this allegation was in definitely incorrect. There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was at all related to or involved with the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, the Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (US secretary of state Colin Powell presented questionable WMD evidence to the UN) at his disposal; chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons and that he was ready to use them. This also ultimately turned out to be false. It is known and widely accepted that this claim was completely untrue.

This could take us back to before the invasion started to ask, could it have been possible that President Bush and his most trusted advisors really believed that Iraq posed a forthcoming threat to the US at the time? Well, it is possible but probably not. Documents such as the infamous Dawning Street Memo e.g. provided a glimpse as to how and why the Bush administration was willing to systematically distort or misrepresent intelligence information in order to have them conform to their desires, "…the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,"

Of course the primary goal in mind was to enhance public support for the invasion they wanted. Other documents show that the US government had planned to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government even before the attacks of 9/11, in order to gain access and control of Iraq's fast oil fields. So thus, the motive was obviously Iraq's oil fields, which was greater than all the oil in the US, the North Sea, China, the Caspian Sea, and West Africa all combined.

Military and political analysts also note that conquering Iraq's government was something the Bush administration sought after so that they could broaden the range of permanent US military bases in the Middle East; something the state department has coveted for at least 50 years. So, to summarize, it appears highly unlikely that the decision makers at the highest levels of the white house critically thought of Iraq as a real threat to national security. From any perspective you wish to look at it, the US led war in Iraq cannot be justified as a matter of self defense. There is nothing in the charter of the UN that says one nation may attack the other preemptively. In other words, one can't legally start a war to prevent what one thinks might happen.

Under the established principles, the war in Iraq initiated by the US in 2003 is a war of aggression. Whether or not we choose to call it 'operation Iraqi freedom' the political and military leaders who initiate and wage wars of aggression are by definition war criminals.

Did the Security Council ever authorize the use of force against Iraq? No, it did not.

The Bush administration did try to persuade the UN Security Council that it should allow the use of force against Iraq. It did this because; only the Security Council has the authority to implement the resolutions of the charter. If the Security Council had authorized the use of force the invasion would have been considered legitimate - that is legal under international law. But when the UN was swayed by the so-called evidence, the US went ahead with the invasion anyway. This was an obvious violation of the Charter of the UN prompting UN secretary general Kofi Annan to famously state, "I have indicated [the invasion] was not in conformity with the UN charter… From the charter point of view it was illegal."

The United Nations Security Council issues resolutions which are charged with maintain international peace and security. There are three relevant resolutions in the UNSC which are used to justify this war. The UNSCR 1441 (of 2002) was used by the United States to validate invading Iraq; although, UNSCR 1441 depicts that Iraq violated the ceasefire terms existing under the UNSCR 687 (of 1991). This meant that resolution 1441 did not itself authorize the use of force against Iraq. UNSCR 1441 does however; recall all prior resolutions - particularly UNSCR 678 (of 1991), which did allow the use of force, but for a different reason. UNSCR 678 authorized use of all necessary means of force to eradicate Iraqi troops and forces from Kuwait.

The UNSCR 1441 was based on all the resolutions it recalled, such as UNSCR 687, UNSCR 678 and UNSCR 660. This resolution was offering Saddam Hussein the opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations, but then considered Iraq in breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the UNSCR 687. There is a discontinuation in the legitimacy the United States was in search for, and this is partially due to the fact that there was no legitimacy to begin with.

The United States, after invading Iraq, violated multiple laws that were laid down by the United Nations Security Council. The United States committed crimes against humanity; which comprised of torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the US custody (not only at Abu-Ghraib, but multiple locations throughout Iraq).

The indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians and civilian populations both during the invasion and continuing to the present occupation is a crime against humanity. The systematic use of terror and intimidation on civilians by the US military upon the civilian population in order to attain any intention, strategic or otherwise is a crime against humanity.

Inhumane acts committed against civilian populations by an occupant supplying force such as the willful denial of water, food, electricity and medicines are violations of the fourth Geneva Convention. Policies such as these constitute a crime against humanity.

The deliberate destruction of hospitals by the US military is a form of collective punishment and is a crime against humanity. Likewise, keeping critically injured civilians from seeing doctors and shooting at ambulances are also crimes against humanity.

This listing of violations is not complete, but even an incomplete such as this that displays such lawlessness as this, suffering that now governs everyday life in Iraq under US occupation. The final verdict is - illegal. Based on the analyses of experts together with the various facts collected here I solemnly believe that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The occupation, still ongoing as I write this essay also violates many articles of international law.