James W. Pfister: Iraq 2003: A rational and legal invasion
Much opinion today, going on 22 years after 9/11, holds that the American invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, was a mistake. My thesis is that the invasion was rational as self-defense and was based on a good-faith legal argument.
The invasion must be seen in the context of the settlement of the First Iraq War, 9/11 and the United Nations, where the Security Council has authority over nations under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Regarding the First Iraq War, on Aug. 2, 1990, Iraq invaded the nation of Kuwait. On that same day, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 660, by a vote of 14-0, with Yemen abstaining, demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuwait “immediately and unconditionally.” When Iraq refused to comply, the Security Council enacted Resolution 678, on Nov. 29, 1990, authorizing the use of force (“all necessary means”) if Iraq did not comply by the following Jan. 15. The vote was 12-2, including Russia, with Cuba and Yemen opposed and China abstaining, which is not a veto. This seminal resolution was drafted to authorize future use of force by the language of “all subsequent relevant resolutions….” This language was the hook by which the United States could legalize its use of force in March 2003, since Resolution 1441 (discussed below) was such a subsequent relevant resolution.
Resolution 687, which ended the First Iraq War, required Iraq to submit to UN inspections regarding WMD (weapons of mass destruction), i.e., chemical, biological and nuclear. Under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, Iraq refused to comply with Resolution 687. He was defiant: Several resolutions were passed and 30 statements were made by the president of the Security Council regarding Iraq’s violation of its duty to cooperate with UN inspectors. Finally, on Nov. 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, by a vote of 15-0, with all permanent members on board. It recalled Resolution 678 which authorized member states to use force to implement Resolution 660 and “all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660,” and decided that Iraq was “in material breach of its obligations….” It famously warned Iraq that “it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations….”
Between Resolutions 678 and 1441 was 9/11. While Resolutions 678 and 1441 provided part of the U.S. legal argument, 9/11 provided the other part: preventive self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The 9/11 attacks were the equivalent of an armed attack, which Article 51 requires. The 9/11 attacks were a surprise, although there had been speculation about terrorist attacks. Nothing had been done. President George W. Bush did not want to make that mistake again. After 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney had stated that his greatest fear was that a terrorist would set off a WMD in an American city. We were dealing with “unknown-unknowns,” in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s terms. We had failed in imagination regarding the use of airplanes as missiles. Even a low probability is dangerous when combined with a terrible possible outcome.
We were blind to Saddam’s WMD and to his relations with terrorists. It was clear that he hated the United States and had defied weapons inspectors. This amounted to a compulsion for self-defense. Notice the concept of necessity in Bush’s letter to congressional leaders after the invasion had begun: “I have … determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations….”
A self-defensive compulsion plus a good-faith legal argument was, I believe, a rational basis for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Also, the resulting demonstration of military capability contributed to deterrence, underpinned the authority of UN resolutions, and was consistent with the United States' role as the unipolar nation in the world at the time.
In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to take the risk to go back to the Security Council to get an explicit authorization for the use of force against Iraq, since the gravamen of our position was our own self-defense under Article 51 and not a world issue.
James W. Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Telegram: James W. Pfister: Iraq 2003: A rational and legal invasion
