The recently released report by the US Presidential Commission indicts the intelligence agencies for being "dead wrong" about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The other interesting development is the timely release of the memorandum, dated 14 September 2003, signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez, the theater commander at the outset of the Iraq War. It clearly lays down the specific interrogation techniques to be used by the American forces in Iraq. These include "sleep management, the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to exploit the Arab fear of dogs".

The release of these documents shows that the Neo Cons are not ready to take the criticism for Iraq war any longer. They are in a hurry to bury the past by sacrificing both the soldiers and the spies, to justify that the American state was not wrong in occupying Iraq. It was all for democracy and human rights. This process is being assisted by the propaganda about "cedar", "tulip" and "violet" democratic revolutions sweeping the globe.

Bush and his team understand now that force in an enlightened world cannot be used unjustly. Wars have to be sold to the public. Illegal wars are difficult to market. Freedom and democracy are good packaging material. However, freedom and democracy do not offer much leeway to launch preemptive wars. The threat of Iraq's WMD was used to launch the invasion of Iraq, but this bluff has since been completely in the US and the UK.

One can suspend one's disbelief and accept that Bush was oblivious of the falsity of the intelligence reports, and that he did not exert any political pressure on the intelligence community to prepare a report to advance his political objectives. But how can one agree that his team was unaware that war involves the Clausewitzian "friction or chance". This friction in war can be caused by one's own army not adhering to the laws of war and, thereby, preventing the achievement of political aims.

We are informed that the soldiers acted on their own to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib. By sentencing the lower ranking soldiers to eight to ten year jail punishment the effort has been to acquit the political class of all misdemeanors in occupied Iraq.

The question arises whether a war which is unjustly fought can be termed a "just war"? The 'just war' theory makes a clear distinction between, jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). According to this logic, politicians, who provide the reasons for war, can never be wrong, if they are powerful enough to justify the morality of their cause. If things go wrong, politicians can always blame it on soldiers.

All acts of organized violence happening within a state are now identified with 'internal wars'. Acts of violence carried out by the state against its own population cannot remain shrouded under the garb of sovereignty.. It is this logic which has led to the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which holds the leadership directly responsible for crimes against humanity within its own territory. Milosevic is being tried by an international tribunal for leading the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. Arafat was criticized by the Israelis and the Americans for not being able to rein in on the extremist elements. For the same reason the Americans have denied a visa to Narendra Modi, implying that in 'internal wars' no distinction can be made on the basis of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The onus of atrocities committed during internal wars by foot soldiers directly falls on the leadership.

However, in 'external wars' the differentiation between the 'justice of war' and 'justice in war' is being maintained. This niche is exploited by the political leadership to wage wars, irrespective of what their soldiers might indulge in during the course of the war. It is this distinction, which emboldens leaders like Bush to kill and render thousands of people homeless with impunity in Iraq. The Israeli establishment also uses these distinctions to make its war look just. On the other hand, any act of violence by the Palestinians is blamed on the weakness of their leadership to control the so-called terrorists.

All wars, whether internal or external, should be judged by the same yardstick. Both Darfur and Fallujja should be judged by the same principles. It is time for the progressive international community to review the immunity granted to political leadership in external wars. Those who perpetrate the so-called 'just wars' should also be brought to book.