Jus ad bellum
1. Legitimate authority waging war
As a nation-state, the United States of America has a legitimate authority to wage war. However, many people feel that in the extreme situation present in Iraq where the existing government was completely destroyed, that other factors should have been taken into account to redefine the term “authority”. For example, critics think that US actions should have been approved by a broad consensus of the nation, as well as by some international sanction, like the UN Security Council. When the US proposed the Iraqi invasion to the United Nations, it was rejected. Protests by American citizens against the US government began prior to the first official attacks in March 2003, and protests show no sign of stopping in the near future. If the approval of the country is required to provide just authority for a war, this war is certainly not being fought by a legitimate authority..

2. Just cause
The United States government contends that there was just cause to enter Iraq because of the potential threat to the United States as a cause of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq possessed. In a case of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), there is not necessarily an opportunity to provide a counterattack as just war mandates, because the destruction might be absolute by that point. However, this does not mean that just war can approve of a pre-emptive strike.
In ancient writings, Saint Augustine declared that the protection of innocents was enough to provide just cause for war. This brings up a whole new set of questions. In this situation, religion is of great importance as it puts the United States in a position of judgment over the Iraqi government and its innocent citizens. To view the war in this light would require seeing the modern world not as a land of sovereign nation-states, but a land that is still dictated by a higher accord that must be considered in politics. This assumption would confuse all elements of contemporary politics and cannot coexist with the modern political world.

3. Goal of peace
The US invasion of Iraq did have a goal of peace for the nation. However, the version of peace hoped for was not a peace that could exist in the present government of the nation, but one that would require a complete political reworking. It was to be a total renovation and a creation of a new version of peace for Iraq. This does not completely fit the definition of having aspirations of peace, nor does is completely conflict with the definition.

4. Just intention
This war was purported to be started in the name of freedom and democracy, but there are obviously other motives in this situation. Part of the motivation for this war was the quest for revenge stemming from President George W. Bush, especially directed towards the hostility Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, caused by tension between this leader and the former President Bush in his term. It is also clear that there were motives having to do with the confiscation of oil in Iraq. If the intention of this war was truly just to support freedom and democracy, the United States would have approached it in a different manner, with a less emotional attack and more patience in waiting for international approval.

5. All peaceful methods have failed
It is hard to ever justify saying that all peaceful methods have failed. There is always one more thing that can be attempted, whether this alternative to war has been thought of or not. The situation in Iraq was at a point where the UN sanctions weren’t working, further UN threats weren’t working, and the diplomatic measures attempted failed, but this does not mean that there was absolutely no alternative.

6. Success is probable
The probability of success in war is something that cannot just be considered part of jus ad bellum, it is a factor that must be constantly re-evaluated as the fighting continues. If the likelihood of success changes to the point where victory is not probable anymore, just war implies that it is better to surrender and back out than it is to continue fighting.

Jus in bellum
1. Means are indispensable to achieve the end
This qualification fails immediately on many levels, especially with the assumption that there is an alternative to going to war. With the belief that more peaceful negotiations are always possible, all deaths are unnecessary.
Once war has begun, a similar argument takes place because there is always more than one way to go about any mission. Recently, soldiers have been defying orders that they feel put them in unnecessary danger. This came to the forefront in October of 2004 when a groupof reservists in Baghdad refused to transport oil 15 miles away to a location in Taji, Iraq, because they believed that the oil would not be received on the other end and because the mission was too shoddily planned to be successful. Here is proof that the mission as it was operating was not necessary, and the in some cases the military has stopped caring about this individual aspect and looks only to the long-term goals, where it is impossible to see how the losses to today will equate with the hopeful success of the future.

2. Means discriminate
a. Proportionally
The death tolls in Iraq are rising every day, sometimes even without a care as to what the new numbers are. The infrastructure of the country has been decimated, maybe beyond repair in some places. There is no way to judge the extent to which this damage would be warranted, and there is also no way to fully account for the impact this war has and will have on Iraqi life overall. If we assume this attack on Iraq to be pre-emptive, proportionality is a useless point because there was no previous attack on American soil to compare with this invasion.

b. Qualitatively
Fighting qualitatively means being absolutely sure that no innocents are dying as a result of planning, but only as a result of incidence. Walzer suggests that "A soldier must take careful aim at his military target and away from nonmilitary targets. He can shoot only if he has a reasonably clear shot; he can only attack if a direct attack is possible. He can risk incidental deaths, but he cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies."
More generally speaking, the war in Iraq does not discriminate qualitatively because of the nature of the insurgent opposition. Currently, the Iraqis fighting the American troops in Iraq are ordinary civilians, impossible to classify as combatants. This has caused numerous American deaths as a result of unexpected attacks by innocent-looking Iraqis, but it has also led to a culture where someone who looks suspicious can be assumed to be dangerous. This is a grave assumption to make, as it allows the military to justify aggression towards anyone, based only on their own human perception of the situation. Though this may save military lives, it does not satisfy the requirements of just war.
This conflict also involves the threat of nuclear weapons. (It was partly because of this threat that it was necessary to go to war in the first place.) If there are any such weapons of mass destruction involved, it cannot be said that this war is being fought qualitatively, as there is a chance these killers might be used at any moment.

3. Means respect international law, laws of humanity
The war in Iraq has led to numerous violations of international laws, especially those set forth at the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. Every day there is more evidence that Iraqis being kept in military jails are being abused by their American captors. This has reached a new high with the cases of mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Though the soldiers responsible for this exploitation are being tried in various courts, the fact that this happened at all violates this point of just war.