Under what terms can a country (or countries) claim that a military intervention into another nation’s affairs is both just (ie, the correct course of action) and justified (ie, allowed)? The two questions are interrelated, but it is easier to deal with them separately, though it should be noted that a solution to the former part of the question equals a solution to the latter, but not the other way around (that is, if it’s just to intervene into a country, then it’s justified, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true).
It is tempting to say that a humanitarian crisis justifies an intervention. However, because military interventions by their nature tend to disrupt the peace, a careful analysis shows that only in situations of serious famine, incredible environmental damage, or grave neglect on the part of the nation’s government to the point where widespread killings are likely are military interventions justified.
In most other situations, the only possible justification for a military intervention comes from military conflict. However, the only just time that military intervention can be used is when a conflict is unlikely to resolve well for either party, or if the conflict is likely to escalate. Unless these two scenarios are met, military interventions into other nations are unjustifiable.
By this logic, then, the Iraq War was unjustifiable.
