In the summer of 2002, President Bush declared that the U. was going to disarm Iraq through warfare. Such an invasion was the first test of the new policy expressed by President George W. Bush of "preemption," which declares that the United States has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to U.S. interests. Months have past since the end of major conflict yet the situations has not improved much. Although President Bush had good intentions, his preemptive war on Iraq is morally and strategically misguided. This raises major questions regarding the justification, legality, and cost of the war itself. .
The two main justification President Bush validate the attack was Iraq's connection to Al Qaeda and Iraq's Possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). In the weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, information was leaked to the media of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the hijackers of the doomed airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center. In response to the leak, the FBI and CIA conducted a thorough investigation and found no evidence that any such meeting took place (Rai). In addition, none of the hijackers were Iraqi, no major figure in Al Qaeda is Iraqi, and no funds to Al Qaeda have been traced to Iraq ("Stopping Al Qaeda"). It is also unlikely that Saddam's regime, which has savagely suppressed Islamics within Iraq, would be able to maintain close links with Osama bin Laden. In fact, Osama's former intelligence chief, Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal, noted that Bin Laden views Saddam Hussein "as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim"( Rai). The other justification was Iraq's possession of WMDs. Despite speculation of possible Iraqi efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, no one has been able to provide firm evidence that Iraqis are actually doing so currently.
