If a nation is allowed under the UN Charter, to wage war in self-defense, then it also seems logical that it should be allowed to wage war on behalf of another nation victimized by aggression. In criminal law this is called the "defense of another" excuse, and the aiding party has the same right to use the same degree of force that the original victim could legally use in his/her self-defense. And could anyone claim that Kuwait had no right to do anything more than throw the aggressor over the border, that it could not carry the war all the way to Baghdad, if Kuwait had the power? So the United States in 1991, could legally have taken the war to Baghdad and done the job then. And Saddam must have realized this, or he would not have agreed to the terms of the cease-fire agreement. He has broken the terms of the agreement he signed to preserve himself in power; his probation has been revoked, and the 1990-1 War is back on again, with a final and better outcome this time, may God grant.
