Running head: THE IRAQI WAR: WAS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do?
The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional, had no real justification for happening and has severely damaged relations with our allies. Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was considered a threat and it was believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, would take on the U.S in an instant and was accused of having ties to the events of September 11, 2006 and the Al-Quaeda terrorist network. None of this could be proved and it appears as if it were all just convenient statements made by the administration to find a way to make it a justifiable ...view middle of the document...
Unfortunately, since World War II, Presidents have usurped this power of Congress, and Congress has abdicated it. There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since December 1941, though there sure have been plenty of wars since then, most notably Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, but also Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and a host of other nations the United States has assaulted directly or covertly over the last six decades (Rothschild, 2002).
Let it first be known that as a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces, the official definition of a “war” can only be related to the fact if there is a 5 star general appointed by our Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. Therefore, as noted earlier, references to the wars of Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf do not specifically include Panama, Grenada, and the Dominican Republic as real wars as the author if this reference stated. Wars have appointed 5 star generals and conflicts do not. Therefore, if there is no 5 star general in power, there is officially no war. There is no such appointment at this time for the Iraqi conflict.
To this extent, we have a lawless Presidency. If we are to restore our democracy, we need to insist that the Constitution be followed. That means Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war.
In the current circumstance of Iraq, the President's cronies argue that he has the authority to wage war by virtue of two Congressional acts. First, in 1991, Congress gave the President the authorization to wage war against Saddam Hussein (though technically it did not declare war). But how open-ended is this authorization? Congress did not intend to give the President a blank check to wage war against Iraq forever, or anytime he happened to feel like it. The Congress did not grant the President the right to change the regime there more than a decade later.
The second Congressional act that Bush's cheerleaders cite is the September 14, 2001, use of force authorization, which allows Bush to attack any person, group, or country that he believes was involved in the attack of 9/11. Now we all know that the Bush administration has been trying their hardest to pin some of the blame for that unforgettable act on Saddam Hussein, but there's hardly a tissue connecting the two.
International law is quite clear: Country A cannot attack Country B unless Country B has already attacked Country A or is about to attack country A. Iraq has not attacked the United States and it's not about to. Saddam, as brutal as he is, and even though he’s no longer in power, his history as a leader is that he loved to cling to power. He knew that attacking the United States would be suicidal.
Actually, under international law, Saddam Hussein had a better case for attacking the United States today than Bush had for attacking Iraq, since Bush is threatened imminent war against Iraq.
Furthermore, for the United...