Cian O’Driscoll, author of the article Re-negotiation the Just War: the Invasion of Iraq and Punitive War, explains how the arguments of punitive war, or wars of punishment, from both Presidents George Bush and Tony Blair relate to the justification of going to war with Iraq in 2003. O’Driscoll, after explaining the justification of both presidents then relates these justifications to jus ad bellum, a Latin term which constitutes a more moral lethal question, when is it “just” or legitimate to go to war?Jus ad bellum is part of just war theory, which over the years has gained two different entities, contemporary just war theory, or in plainer terms the older traditional way of justifying punitive wars.
The second is conventional just war theory, the way we justify punitive wars as of right now. O’Driscoll uses Bush and Blair’s argument in justifying the punitive Iraq war with conventional just war theory, O’Driscoll then relates this conventional justification to how contemporary war was justified back in the days.O’Driscoll is comparing contemporary and conventional just war theory, saying that although there are differences among the two, contemporary just war theory still has influence on conventional just war theory and punitive wars. First, we should understand the differences O’Driscoll points out between contemporary and conventional jus ad bellum. O’Driscoll points out that contemporary jus ad bellum justifies punitive wars with a more moral and religious agenda.
O’Driscoll points out that wars were usually justified because God commanded the punishment of the wrongdoers and the evils of the world. The author uses two examples from other just war theorist such as O’Donavan and Elshtain, who write books about contemporary just war theory and the moral and religious aspect in justifying punitive wars. Next is conventional just war theory, how we justify punitive wars now, which according to O’Driscoll focuses on law enforcement and upholding social order.Both presidents Bush and Blair used justification for the war in Iraq by saying that Iraq has violated international laws and U. N. security council resolutions.
Bush and Blair both argued that Iraq must be punished so that institutions like the U. N. can be reaffirmed and vindicated. This is what O’Driscoll was talking about, the key difference between contemporary and conventional punitive war justification is their reliance, one on law enforcement to justify, and the other on moral evil to justify.O’Driscoll not only points out those key differences above, but he also states that contemporary just war theory still plays a major role in conventional just war theory. O’Driscoll uses the example of both Bush and Blair, both presidents used contemporary and conventional style justification by making speeches about how Iraq is morally evil.
Justifications even went as far as creating stereotype towards Muslims as an evil religion we must fight against.On top of this Bush and Blair used conventional style justification by saying Iraq has violated international laws because of O’Driscoll we see that although contemporary style justification is old, it has not gone away and is intermingled with conventional style justification of punitive wars. O’Driscoll doesn’t stop there, after explaining contemporary and conventional justifications of punitive wars, he then tries to figure out if the Iraq war, with the arguments of conventional and contemporary just war theory by Bush and Blair, make the Iraq war a just or unjust war.O’Driscoll uses another just war theorist named Grotius, to back up his claim that the Iraq war may in fact be an unjust war. Grotius says that just wars must always be punitive in character and should be carried out within the bonds of law and good faith. Grotius also states that punitive just war may only be used against those who could not be restrained by the judicial process.
O’Driscoll used Grotius in his article to show that president Bush and Blair did not use all the resources such as the judicial system as an alternative to not going to war.Going to war was not Bush’s last resort and therefor makes the Iraq war unjust. If the Iraq war is unjust than jus ad bellum reflects negatively on jus in bello, the responsibilities of military commanders to uphold justice while in war. This is another one of O’Driscoll’s key arguments if contemporary jus ad bellum focuses on moral religious aspects and justifies punitive wars by calling people evil wrongdoers, how will military commanders uphold justice when they see the people who’s country they are nvading as evil wrongdoers.After the September 11th terrorist attacks president Bush, as stated before, made contemporary just war justifications by saying Iraq is evil.
These speeches on top of media coverage of the middle east created stereotype on Muslims and people started to believe that all Muslims were terrorist. This affects jus in bello because a military commander now has to control many soldiers who think every Iraqi civilian is a terrorist because they have scarfs on their heads. This creates problems such as civilian casualties and the want to kill anyone who looks like the terrorist on the day of September 11th, even if they are innocent.In conclusion, O’Driscoll’s article was very interesting, we now understand the key differences between contemporary just war theory and conventional just war theory and how they were both used by Bush and Blair to justify the Iraq war.
In O’Driscoll’s article you will find that their is more evidence supporting the Iraq war as an unjust war than a just one. Also we shouldn’t forget about jus in bello and how it is affected by jus ad bellum.
