I recently commented in reply to the notion of the Iraq war 2003 as Just War. (theory that holds certain conditions make a case for response to a attack as being "Just War' response):
The UN Resolution 1441 was to pressure Saddam into compliance to weapons inspectors. It didn't work because of one clause that wasn't there - the UN authority for regime change. The eventual invasion was in breach of International Law. This is the modus operandi of a policy of self-interest. Actualizing regime change may be a good thing but the legality of it has to stack up with two perimeters: Just War Theory and Humanitarian concerns. Both did not meet the criteria for invasion. On the note about humanitarian concerns, the issue is vague at best in comparison to other countries or regions such as Darfur.
There may have been a deep concern about the "eventual risk" if Saddam stayed in power - true - the WMD paradigmatic for regime shift was based on loose Intel (strange after 12 years of watching Saddam- I don't get that) and so the hype about his "intent" (quoting Blair and Jack Straw) was used to pressure an international community agreement to take Saddam "out" by the US for US self-interest.
Like I said - after watching the interviews at the Iraq Inquiry - I have become quite sure that the self-interest mode was in full operating position.
Just War in case of Iraq in 2003 did not meet Just War criteria therefore.
Comments