Debate about the Iraq war completely misses the point

What happened to Iraq? It is no mystery that coverage of the war in Iraq has diminished greatly. This is understandable, to an extent, given the economic crisis facing the nation. However, the war in Iraq is still a war. Despite rosy pictures painted by U.S. politicians and military commanders, the situation there is fragile - to say the least. Though violence has significantly declined, it is still a country under military occupation characterized by sectarian tension and a fledgling government run by warring militias.

When examining possible solutions to the situation it is important to remember one basic fact: the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression. A war of aggression, as defined by international law, is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. The late Chief Justice Robert Jackson - intimately familiar with war crimes himself, as he was the chief prosecutor of Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trial - defined such a war with chilling clarity.

"To initiate a war of aggression," he proclaimed, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Numerous polls have indicated that a vast majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country immediately. Yet this simply does not seem to enter the political or mainstream media discourse. Instead of debating the legal or ethical status of the war, politicians and pundits spend their time debating the strategic pros and cons - a prime example of the imperial mindset in Washington.

Renowned intellectual and political activist Noam Chomsky was asked in a 2007 interview for The Big Think what he thought the "best way forward in Iraq" was. "That's an interesting question," he replied, "When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the '80s, no one asked, 'What's the best way forward for them?' The best way forward was for them to get out: they had no right to be there. But when the West invades a country, all the values shift. The only question that arises is, 'What's best for the aggressors?'"

Chomsky went on the describe the quest for a "way forward" as a sign of a "deeply rooted imperial mentality that goes back centuries." "We run the world is the mentality," he explained, "we decide what's best."

It's reasonable to believe that a just resolution of the Iraq War would be that which adheres to international law, general consensus and universal moral principles. Such a resolution would have three major components, the first being the complete termination of all U.S. military and corporate presence from Iraq.

The second element would include considerable reparations paid to the Iraqi people for the crimes perpetrated against them. These crimes would include the most recent invasion, as well as U.S. support for Saddam Hussein while he was committing his most heinous atrocities, and the subsequent brutal, decade-long sanctions we placed on Iraq, which decimated the Iraqi people. The sanctions prompted then-Michigan Congressman David Bonior to describe the sanctions as "infanticide masquerading as policy."

The third and final component of a just resolution would entail holding the guilty accountable. Former President Bush, along with the chief architects and spokespeople for the invasion of Iraq - namely, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle - must stand trial for war crimes. These individuals are responsible for committing what Justice Roberts rightfully called "the supreme international crime."

The enthusiasm with which the American public and its youth mobilized during the 2008 presidential elections was encouraging. However, allowing the perpetrators of such a high crime to get away scot-free sets a dangerous precedent. Not only will we be telling the world that we are not willing to hold our own politicians accountable for their actions, we will be further endangering the noble ideals upon which our nation was built. Electing an administration that advocates change and a new way forward is simply not enough. If we don't hold their predecessors accountable, what's to stop future leaders from committing the same crimes?