Iraq war botched and illegal

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

Apart from a few enthusiasts of the "surge," most commentators now regard the Iraq war as a terrible mistake. With Democrats likely to take the White House next year, the focus seems to be shifting to the problem of extricating U.S. troops.

Can the war then be chalked up to a painful lesson learned?

On the contrary, after five years of war, it seems that no real lesson has been learned. Indeed, there's a refusal to even acknowledge why it was wrong to invade Iraq.

Sure, there's lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and "treasure."

All this is true, but it skirts a more fundamental problem âe" one that was barely mentioned in all the fifth-year anniversary commentaries last week âe" that the invasion was a war of aggression carried out in defiance of international law.

This is not a mere technicality. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, set up by the Allies after World War II: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime."

The whole international legal system established after 1945 was dedicated to outlawing aggression, with the United Nations Security Council created to act as arbiter.

The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq without the approval of the Security Council was therefore illegal, as then UN secretary general Kofi Annan has noted.

None of this seems to concern Senator Hillary Clinton, who stands a good chance of being the "anti-war" candidate in the U.S. presidential election.

Of course, Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize an invasion of Iraq. Still, in her tight race with Barack Obama, she's tried to reposition herself as anti-war. She now argues for bringing (at least some) troops home âe" since, as she said last week, the U.S. has already done enough by giving Iraqis "their freedom."

This is a stunning line of reasoning. Leaving aside the absurdity of suggesting that what Iraqis are experiencing is "freedom," there is the troubling fact that she doesn't seem to be aware âe" or care âe" that invading Iraq was contrary to international law.

This indifference to the war's illegality is typical of mainstream political and academic commentators.

Michael Ignatieff, who was prominent among intellectuals supporting the war, failed to even mention the war's illegality in his widely noted mea culpa in the New York Times Magazine last summer. Ignatieff, now deputy leader of Canada's Liberal party, took himself to task in the Times article. "I let emotions carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror?"

A more basic "hard" question didn't seem to occur to Ignatieff: What right does the United States have to invade other countries?

It seems the lesson learned is to plan better before invading.

As long as commentators confine themselves to this sort of war critique, the imperial assumption behind the war âe" that the U.S. has the right to invade countries âe" will remain unchallenged, making more war likely.

Indeed, some of the war's key enablers âe" like Clinton and Ignatieff âe" may soon hold power. Clinton may well be in a position to give more people their "freedom."

We in the West are vigilant about aggression in our enemies. Yet, after five years of horror in Iraq, we remain doggedly blind to Western aggression.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.