So, You Say You're a Hawk for the War in Iraq?

I have noticed there are a lot of content producers on AC that are Hawkish on the War in Iraq. I have asked them why in an honest attempt at fact finding. I thought I just might be missing something. Something that made these very intelligent "War Hawks" feel that "Operation Freedom" was the most important thing we could be doing in the world right now. These folks I asked...well, I respect their opinion. They are obviously well read and intelligent and they do have a firm grasp on a lot of issues. But just like every other opinion they do employ spin to make their argument. Some of these folks see nothing wrong with what we are doing in our foreign policy as a whole. The only thing they think that we possibly did wrong was not implementing proper military tactics. They feel the tactics that we have employed could have been improved upon. This article will address just some of the things that I feel are wrong in regards to "Operation Freedom" specifically and why I feel this was an unnecessary and potentially dangerous war.

First lets examine whether or not "Operation Freedom" is, in fact, a legal War:

"Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."

"Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title." Under the Constitution, war powers are divided and not equal."

"Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.

"During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war."

"The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. Presidents have submitted 118 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4 or specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger."

..."Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times."(Wikipedia) However, they did not in Iraq.

Well, Congress never issued a declaration for War in Iraq but they did authorize the use of force in Iraq with H.J. Res. 114. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was passed into law.

"In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1), allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request." (Wikipedia)

The last time I checked, this war has been going on since March 19, 2003 and the President has not asked for a formal declaration of war in Iraq and Congress has not granted it! That, in and of itself, makes this an "ILLEGAL WAR."

The only other way we could go to War legally is covered in Article 6 Paragraph 2.
In the United States Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph 2 The Supremacy Clause, states the following:

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This means any treaty signed by the US is binding and if we break the treaty we sign, we are breaking the US Constitution. So, one of the treaties signed by the United States was the UN Charter. The UN Charter forbids the use of force accept in two circumstances. One is self defense and the other is if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

In Article 2 of the UN Charter it states the following:

"The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles."

..."3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Thereby making the Iraq war illegal..."
(UN Charter)

In order for this invasion of Iraq to be legal in the eyes of the UN and the international community an additional Security Council resolution would have had to be granted to America. The president tried to obtain a new resolution from the UN but failed. The fact that President Bush failed to receive this resolution and went ahead with the invasion made this a "War of Aggression!" After WWII the Nuremberg Tribunal declared any War of Aggression a supreme international crime. Again making this an "Illegal War!"

However, the US will never be prosecuted under international law because the UN Security Council is the only legal body that can look into and prosecute any action and the US and Britain has veto power on the council. This veto power would effectively stop any action against them. I hope this is clear enough for you all.

Now that we understand that this war was illegal, lets move on and look at just a few things that could have been avoided in the prosecution of this "Illegal War." Some of this is old news and some of it is new news. The thing is, it all was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

Here is a list to ponder:

Yet More Abu Ghraib photos

..."images of naked prisoners, some bloodied and lying on the floor, threatened to revive public anger over abuse by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib prison at a time when tensions with the West are already running high in the Middle East. The images were taken about the same time as the earlier photos that triggered a worldwide scandal and led to military trials and prison sentences for several lower-ranking American soldiers."
(www.outsidethebeltway.com)

And

Torture in Iraq Still Routine, Report Says
Detainees Beaten, Hung by Wrists, Shocked by Security Forces, Rights Group Finds
By Doug Struck Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 25, 2005; Page A10

"BAGHDAD, Jan. 24 -- Twenty months after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled and its torture chambers unlocked, Iraqis are again being routinely beaten, hung by their wrists and shocked with electrical wires, according to a report by a human rights organization.

Iraqi police, jailers and intelligence agents, many of them holding the same jobs they had under Hussein, are "committing systematic torture and other abuses" of detainees, Human Rights Watch said in a report to be released Tuesday." (Washington Post )

And

Iraq: Beyond Abu Ghraib: Detention and torture in Iraq
Download Reports:
Index Number: MDE 14/001/2006
Categories: Iraq, Middle East And North Africa, Middle East And North Africa

"In this report, Amnesty International focuses on human rights violations for which the US-led Multinational Force is directly responsible and those which are being committed by Iraqi security. Since the invasion in March 2003 tens of thousands of people have been detained by foreign forces without being charged. Many cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in facilities controlled by the Iraqi authorities have been reported. Amnesty International is calling on the Iraqi, US and UK authorities to take urgent, concrete steps to ensure that the fundamental human rights of all detainees in Iraq are respected." (www.amnesty.org)

And

GIs eyed in alleged rape, murders in Iraq

BEIJI, Iraq (AP) - Investigators believe a group of U.S. soldiers suspected of raping an Iraqi woman, then killing her and three members of her family plotted the attack for nearly a week, a U.S. military official said Saturday.
Up to five soldiers are being investigated in the March killings, the fifth pending case involving alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops.

The Americans entered the Sunni Arab's family home, separated three males from the woman, raped her and burned her body using a flammable liquid in a cover-up attempt, a military official close to the investigation said. The three males were also slain. (www.usatoday.com)

And

Iraq is becoming "free fraud" zone
Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal.
By Michael Hirsh Newsweek

And

U.S. official charged with corruption in Iraq
Complaint alleges more than $400,000 in bribes for reconstruction contracts
By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit Updated: 7:26 p.m. ET Nov 17, 2005

And

Iraqi judge: Corruption undermines Iraq's future
By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Iraq's top corruption fighter, who's seeking U.S. asylum because of death threats against him, told a congressional panel Thursday that rising corruption cost Iraq $18 billion over the past three years, with enormous sums of oil revenues ending up in the hands of Sunni and Shiite militias.(www.mcclatchydc.com)

And

Middle East News
Corruption in Iraq as bad as ever, US official says (Roundup)
Oct 4, 2007, 20:45 GMT

"Washington - Corruption within the Iraqi government is as bad as ever and has become a 'second insurgency' threatening to undermine US and Iraqi efforts to build a stable democracy, a US official said Thursday.

'The tide of corruption continues to rise and the problem is as bad today as it's ever been,' Stuart Bowen, the US State Department's special inspector for reconstruction in Iraq, told a congressional panel." (news.monstersandcritics.com)

And

State Dept: Corruption in Iraq is Classified

"In preparation for a September 27 hearing on corruption within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Representative Henry Waxman, who chairs the House government oversight and reform committee, sent a request--and then a subpoena--to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for documents and witnesses. He wanted the State Department to turn over various documents, including a copy of a secret report prepared by the Baghdad embassy that details rampant corruption within the Iraqi government. He also demanded that the State Department make available to his investigators three officials in the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency who have worked on the issue of Iraqi corruption.

The State Department refused to turn over the documents and said no to the interview requests. Then it slightly changed its tune. Joel Starr, the deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, notified Waxman that his committee could interview the State Department officials, but anything they had to say about corruption within the Iraqi government would be classified--meaning Waxman could not disclose that information to the public."

And

Rice calls corruption in Iraq 'pervasive'
By Susan Crabtree
Posted: 10/26/07 07:22 PM [ET]

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fought off tough questions from House Democrats Thursday over charges that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had issued an edict protecting top ministers, including a cousin, from corruption investigations.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has held numerous Iraq-related hearings, raised claims that Maliki had issued a decree in April that no one in the top levels of the Iraqi government - including the presidential office, council of ministers and current and previous ministers - could be investigated for corruption without his approval.

At a hearing before the panel in early October, the former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, testified that al-Maliki had protected family members from corruption investigations, including Salam al-Maliki, Iraq's former transportation minister and the prime minister's cousin.

Al-Radhi resigned last month and fled Iraq after he and his family were attacked and 31 of his anti-corruption employees were killed. He said corruption has affected "virtually every agency and ministry, including some of the most powerful officials in Iraq."

Despite the incendiary charges, Rice remained calm and conceded that corruption was "a pervasive problem" in Iraq.
(thehill.com)

And

CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has "gone as far as feasible" and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

"After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted," wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. "As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible." (AP)

And

Iraq Benchmarks Not Met

"In the year since President Bush announced he was changing course in Iraq with a troop 'surge' and a new strategy, U.S. military and diplomatic officials have begun their own quiet policy shift," The Washington Post reports. "After countless unsuccessful efforts to push Iraqis toward various political, economic and security goals, they have decided to let the Iraqis figure some things out themselves."

In "Escaping the Trap: Why the United States Must Leave Iraq," Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, writes: "It is time to admit that the Iraq mission has failed and cut our losses. The notion that Iraq would become a stable, united, secular democracy and be the model for a new Middle East was always an illusion. We should not ask more Americans to die for that illusion."
(www.cato.org)

And

For U.S., The Goal Is Now 'Iraqi Solutions'
Approach Acknowledges Benchmarks Aren't Met
By Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 10, 2008; Page A01

..."Although some progress has been made and legislation in some cases has begun to slowly work its way through the parliament, none of these benchmarks has been achieved. Nor has the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki taken over security responsibility for all 18 provinces, as Bush forecast it would. Last month's transfer of Basra province by British forces brought to nine the number of provinces under Iraqi control."

..."For some observers, the approach indicates a new realism in Washington, a recognition that long years of grandiose plans drawn from U.S. templates have not worked in Iraq. But others charge that the phrase "Iraqi solutions" implies a cynical U.S. willingness to turn a blind eye to sectarianism, political violence and a wealth of papered-over problems -- if that is the price of getting the United States out of Iraq.

"The new phrasing is both the dawning of reality, and the cynical use of language and common sense to camouflage past errors, hoping to avoid the audit of flawed logic that got us to this point," said a retired British general familiar with the U.S. experience in Iraq, and who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of his current position."

"U.S. officials at various levels are pushing the idea for different reasons, said Sarah Sewall, director of Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a Clinton-era Pentagon official. While Petraeus has embraced the notion out of "realism," Sewall said, she thinks the Bush administration "has recently arrived at this formula out of desperation -- due to the failure of its past efforts."
(Washington Post)

Now lets Look at How this "Illegal War" has had a Recruiting Effect for Radical Islam's Jihad:

Hatred of U.S. drives al-Qaida recruiting
As Americans become desensitized, violence radicalizes ordinary Arabs
By Robert Windrem and Richard EngelNBC Newsupdated 7:28 p.m. ET, Tues., Oct. 16, 2007

"The Bush administration rejects the idea that the war in Iraq has driven young Arab men into the arms of al-Qaida. But if you believe the young men themselves, the administration is wrong.

"At a Baghdad jail for prisoners who have attacked U.S. forces, everyone - to a man - says it was the U.S. occupation of Iraq that drove them to violence. And they are not alone. Across the Middle East and South Asia, the same story can be heard in Internet cafes, mosques, safe houses and prisons."

"The U.S. says this war is part of the global war on terrorism," Saedi Farhan, an Iraqi engineer who took part in an attack on U.S. forces, said in a weekend interview with NBC News. "But people here say that the war has increased fanaticism and brought terrorism to Iraq." (www.msnbc.msn.com)

And

Islamist Websites Succeed in Recruiting Muslims for Jihad
By Abdul Hameed Bakier

"It only takes a quick glance at a handful of these websites to realize how effective and appealing they are to young Muslim men and women who seek to practice correct Islamic ideology and who wish to rid the Muslim world of "infidel colonizers." One of the latest websites that jihadis have launched is called al-Boraq Media (http://www.alboraqmedia.org). The site contains up-to-date information about the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to other theaters of operations. The most effective media materials are the video clips of shootings, explosions and the destruction of U.S. military vehicles; these videos are uploaded to their websites in different sizes and qualities."(www.jamestown.org)

And

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told
Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency
By Dana Priest and Josh White Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01

"The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence."
(Washington Post)

Now Lets Look at the Cost of this "Illegal War:"

This next section is going to be short and sweet but the most poignant. These next stats will demonstrate just how expensive this "Illegal War" is to us as a nation. We are selling ourselves wholesale to the foreign powers that are financing this war (namely China and Saudi Arabia). In effect we are bankrupting ourselves to prosecute this "Illegal War!" Not to mention the fact that once again we are sacrificing the lives of our loved ones, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions of Iraqis.

"Almost $500,000,000,000.00 total
$275 million per day
$4,100 per household
Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded
700,000 Iraqis killed and 4 million refugees"
(http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home)

Some one once said to me (in regards to our foreign policies) something to the effect, "When you're a Super Power, you can't be an isolationist super power, you can't be a non-interventionist super power. You don't have that luxury, it's not simply an option. You have a moral obligation to use your power...When your every single decision effects the entire globe, you need to not pretend that you aren't a major part of it. I guess the only other option is indeed to pull all of our troops out of every country in the world, and begin a major de-super powerification plan that tilts us back and raises the bar of the other nations, thereby leveling everything and putting us on a footing of 1938 once more."

I will not mention this gentlemen's name to be polite and I think he is partly right in his estimation. However, I feel confident when I say a great number of Americans want our country, not to be an isolationist country, but to be involved in a different and far better way. Many Americans (myself included) think war should be our last resort. Sometimes, Americans have a tendency to believe war is a glamorous thing and tend to glorify it. When, in actuality, war is anything but glamorous and it's definitely not something worthy of glorification. Sometimes, I think modern Americans will never be able to understand what it is like to go through a war on our own soil, but September Eleventh brought us close to understanding. War sometimes is inevitable and a regrettably necessary thing and with war come atrocities. To think otherwise would be naive. So, think about this for a minute, was this war necessary? The answer should be self evident!

Sources:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Washington Post
www.jamestown.org
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.cato.org
AP
thehill.com
State Dept
news.monstersandcritics.com
www.mcclatchydc.com
NBC
www.usatoday.com
www.amnesty.org
www.outsidethebeltway.com
UN Charter
Wikipedia