I'm not sure everyone who opposes the war thinks its "illegal." I for one opposed it from the start but certainly never thought there was anything illegal about it. Terms like illegal and legal don't really have a place in conflict. I suppose it violates the UN charter but then again so did the US backed coalition that went into Kosovo which also failed to get a UN mandate. Also, using the UN as a standard seems rather silly. The UNSC would never authorize a resolution to send peacekeepers to Darfur because China would veto it everytime. Would that make a potential US intervention into Darfur illegal? Maybe so, but the distinction is meaningless in my opinion. That's not an argument against all international law. Certainly violating the Geneva Conventions should be illegal or violating any other treaties. But war is a unique animal and unless there are strict treaties banning certain practices (for example conventions banning certain weapons) then I don't see a big deal. War is a special animal that deserves somewhat seperate consideration because legality sets a dangerous precedent. What i hate about the legality/illegality distinction is the way that it creates legitimacy for conflict. So we criticize the brutal practices of the illegal US occupation, but you hardly ever hear about the crap we did in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. All the stuff about depleted uranium, civilian casualities, etc.. But that title of legal conflict almost shields militaries from criticism and is used as a justification for practices that merit criticism. The danger of a distinction is twofold in my opinion. 1) It gives way too much power to faulty international institutions like the UN. (And I don't oppose the existance of the UN by any means but you have to admit that it's corrupt and broken) And such a broken system should never be a standard for war and conflict because of the uber political nature of decisions in there. It's not even legitimate diplomacy. Countries buy off votes with foreign aid and the permanent veto countries do whatever the **** they want. Like I said, using your legality standard, a Darfur intervention will never happen. Hell Kosovo probably wouldn't have even happened because Russia wanted to veto it. 2) It shields the military from way too much criticism as explained above and creates a meaningless distinction that serves no benefit. Some may say that a legal war would bring more international support but I think support will join regardless of the legality of anything. It's not like countries would have refused to participate in Desert Storm if the UN hadn't passed a resolution authorizing international action. Wars should be judged by pure costs/benefits, not legality arguments. I favored an invasion of Iraq if we had gotten a true international coalition, and I didn't particularly care if the UN signed on or not. Just as long as a real coalition via NATO and a few Arab countries was created. There are plenty of reasons to have opposed the invasion of Iraq, but legality should be the least of your concerns.
