Although there are various forms of the just war doctrine, a just war usually must meet three basic requirements. First, the attacking party must have a just cause. A just cause is a ôreal and certain danger,ö which could include alleviating suffering, protecting innocent life or ensuring human rights (Gordon, 387). Second, the size and intensity of the war must be proportionate to the danger posed. In other words, the attacking party should not seek to cause damage that exceeds the damage done to it (Gordon, 387). Third, the attacking party must believe that it can wage the war successfully. This essay examines these requirements of the just war doctrine as applied to the military campaign currently underway in Iraq.
In March, 2003, former President Jimmy Carter wrote an editorial for the New York Times in which he argued that President George W. BushÆs push for war in Iraq violated the just war doctrine. On the other hand, approximately three months before, Robert George, a law professor and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, writing for the Wall Street Journal, argued that President BushÆs rationale clearly met the principles necessary for a just war.
President Carter argued that the U.S.Æ determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, and without exhausting all non-violent options, violated just war principles (Carter, 13). Essentially, he contended that the administration did not allow for the conclusion of non-violent measures by the United Nations (Carter, 13). Furthermore, Carter argued that any UN action only, at the most, authorized military action to disarm Iraq. President BushÆs additional rationales of regime change, liberating Iraq, and instilling democracy in the Middle East were completely without sanction (Carter 13; Milbank, A20).
Robert George, however, countered by arguing that the just war doct...