Posted by
Mike on Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:38:40 PM
http://www.westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The major difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush in
going to war is that Bush was openly in outright contempt of
international legal norms. To him, all of the legal justification
needed to start a war against Iraq was to get his house lawyer Alberto
Gonzalez to say that the Geneva Declarations were "quaint" in outlawing
torture. Halfhearted attempts by Colin Powell to secure UN approval
ended in failure, and thus was born the "coalition of the willing" to
punish Saddam Hussein for his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction,
going into Iraq with guns blazing to topple the Ba'athist regime.
The principles of international law, safeguarded within the UN
framework, are designed to bring about peace among nations by making
determinations as to whether military force is justified under a
given set of circumstances. In the case of Iraq, the ruling was against
George W. Bush's claim that war was necessary and justified to prevent
Saddam from obtaining WMDs. Bush went ahead and invaded Iraq with the
advice and consent of Congress leading America into a prolonged, costly
and unnecessary war on two separate fronts. Given this total disregard
for law and the abuses suffered by prisoners of war involving torture,
at least some in the Bush administration should be held accountable for
war crimes.
Barack Obama in contrast did act pursuant to a UN resolution authorizing
the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya. Kadhafi is now perceived
internationally as a war criminal for intentionally gunning down and
bombing civilians. There is a big difference between what Bush did in
2003 and what Obama is doing today.