Not all the tactics used by the allies in World War II met the standards of jus in bello. Indeed, some attacks -- the firebombing of the Germany city of Dresden, for example -- went ahead, even in the knowledge that tens of thousands of civilians would die or suffer horrifying injuries.

Despite the use of morally questionable tactics, the men who won the Second World War entered the history books as heroes. It is too soon to know how history will judge the men and women now fighting in Iraq, but it seems unlikely they will enjoy the uncomplicated admiration accorded to their World War II predecessors.

Outside the United States, and particularly in the Arab and Muslim worlds, there is considerable criticism of the way U.S. soldiers have fought in Iraq. The criticism stems in part from a military strategy that appears to prioritize killing enemies over protecting civilians and winning their support. It also stems from a series of highly publicized scandals such as the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.


Relative of an Iraqi prisoner waits outside Abu Ghraib
© Getty Images

The intensity of the venom expressed against the U.S. army occupying Iraq -- which at the extreme appears to contribute to international terrorism -- is probably tied to anger about the decision to invade. Many people believe that in failing to exhaust all peaceful alternatives, making misleading statements about the intelligence, and declaring war outside the United Nations, the U.S. government violated multiple requirements of jus ad bellum. Hostility toward the architects of that war may have rubbed off on the soldiers who were told to fight it.

In your opinion, is the Iraq war a "just war"? Answer with reference to both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

With reference to the World Conflicts Today Iraq text, describe three decisions, actions, or mistakes that have damaged the U.S. war effort. Which, in your opinion, has proved the most damaging?