Just War Theory, Part III

This is the third in a series of posts attempting to apply the concept of Just War Theory to the war in Iraq. Earlier posts include an Introduction, a discussion of proper authority (Part I), and a discussion of war as a last resort (Part II).

According to Just War Theory, any war must be undertaken with "all possible moderation." The failure of the Bush Adminstration to abide by this principle is most obvious of all the violations of Just War Theory, in fact, it is the most disturbing and flagrant violation of religious principles.

In a just war, all international conventions are obeyed, excessive destruction should be avoided, and particular care must be undertaken to avoid the death and injury of non-combatants.

First, this war was begun with a campaign of Shock and Awe in the city of Baghdad. Such a campaign is hardly targeted. Americans are (mis)led to believe that our 'precision weapons' are able to seek out individuals, check addresses, and do no harm except to a purported high value target. While US weapons are indeed more accurate and do less 'collateral damage' that WWII vintage weapons, when our military bombs a major city like Baghdad, with 'Shock and Awe' as an objective, that violates the principle of limitation necessary to avoid civilian deaths. A limited attack, targeting only military installations, for example, may be appropriate. 'Shock and Awe' is not.

The video clip below demonstrates the size and scale of the 'Shock and Awe' campaign, and demonstrates its violation of principle of limited action to avoid civilian casualties.







Additionally, the US has failed to meet its Just War obligations by failing to provide adequate protection for Iraqi civilians in the post-war environment. Untold thousands of Iraqis have died. Thousands more have become refugees from their homes, living with the suffering the results. This failure compounds the consequences of the US invasion which cause death and injury to non combatants. I will deal more with this issue as it relates to another aspect of Just War Theory in a subsequent post.


The Bush Adminstration has made a conscious decision not to abide by international conventions regarding the treatment of detainees. This is an issue about which I have posted on numerous occassions, so I will no revisit all of the issues here. Suffice it to say that our President has seized authority for himself to be the 'decider' as to what constitutes torture, and that practices that clearly are torture under international understandings- such as waterboarding- have been 'redefined' as merely 'aggressive interrogation techniques.' See previous posts such as "World Leader in Torture", "Wisked Away", "Torture Law is Signed", "This Isn't Torture?" (w/ video of waterboarding), "We don't torture...", and "Read my Lips" for some of the details on the US torture policy.

And then, of course, there is Abu Ghraib.

We have failed to conduct a war consistent with the protection of Iraqi civilians (those who we went to Iraq to liberate), and failed to conduct a war consistent with internation conventions.

Again, the US has demonstrably failed to meet the moral obligations of Just War Theory.


GP

Just War Theory and Iraq, Part II

A key principle of just war theory is that war must be undertaken as a last resort. It is feasible that in dealing with a crisis, all non-military options may be exhausted, or a party to the conflict may launch a military strike first, and the only viable option at that point may be war.

While that is clearly a possible case, it is not the case in regards to the US and Iraq.

Iraq presented no immediate threat to the United States.

• Iraq had made no effort to attack a US interest since the 1993 planned assassination attempt on former President Bush.
• The alleged connection between Iraq and September 11 was never supported by any credible evidence, and, of course, was later proven without foundation.
• The alleged connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was equally spurious, with bin Laden having declared Hussein's government an 'apostate regime' that he wished to see overthrown with a Taliban style regime.
• Even if the arguments about WMD had been accurate, which, of course, they were not, Iraq had shown no capability or intention to make use of such weapons against the US, and the US presence in the region, and with the 'no fly zones' had even been keeping Hussein in check in regards to his treatment of the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shia in the south.

That last point is key. With the stepped up efforts in the no fly zones, and the periodic strikes against targets in Iraq when Hussein did step out of line within Iraq's borders, Hussein was being contained.

The proper model for considering how to deal with Iraq was provided by the 'cold war' between the US and the Soviet Union. Dealing with the Soviets meant containing their threats, not destroying them. A comprehensive policy of military preparedness, international cooperation, and economic sanctions was largely effective in keeping the Soviet Union from posing an immediate threat to the United States. I know the analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough to be relevant. The US could have continued to contain Iraq through the sanctions regime and no fly zones.

Those who supported the war would sometimes say something to the effect, "This has been going on for 10 plus years." My reply, "So what?" Do we have a timetable on peace? If a policy had protected the US for 10 years, is it time to scrap that policy?

War Iraq a cause for concern? Yes. Was it an imminent threat that called for immediate action? No.

The US could have continued policies that had been working in dealing with Iraq, and, if necessary, could have explored other policies that did not call for a military invasion. The President and his advisers had another agenda, sought to tie Iraq to 9/11 even when the tie was not there, overplayed their hand on the issue of WMD, and drove this nation into a war that was not only unnecessary, but actually has made us less secure- according to the President's own intelligence advisers.

The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not a policy of last resort. As a result, the war in Iraq has failed a second criteria for a just war.

GP

[See Part I of this series of posts here]

Just War Theory and Iraq, Part I

One of the key components of a just war, according to just war theory (see my brief Introduction), is that a war must be undertaken by a legitimate and proper authority. While it may not seem apparent, the war in Iraq fails to meet even this relatively straightforward criteria.

The US has not declared war since World War II. Since the close of that war, however, our troops have been involved in many conflicts, perhaps most notably Korea, Vietnam. Each of these wars was a long conflict, and had high casualties, and yet there was never an official declaration of war- which caused problems in each case, but most especially in the case of Vietnam.

The Founding Fathers, when they wrote the US Constitution, had the wisdom to realize that (1) to prevent overly agressive use of the US military, and (2) to create the circumstances best suited to military success once a war had been undertaken, a unified government must be behind the war effort. The President was made commander-in-chief, but it is the responsibility of the Congress to declare war. The US Congress has abdicated that responsibility over the last 60 years.

The failure to follow constitutional guidelines has been very troublesome for the US in that through its abdication, the Congress has violated both of the Founders objectives. The US has engaged in military actions it should not have engaged in. Perhaps more importantly, the Congress has been able to adopt a "have your cake and eat it too" position.

In both the case of Vietnam and the current war in Iraq, the Congress provided a general "authorization" to the President to use military force. In each case, members of Congress, when the war began to go poorly, have been able to claim that the intended the authorization only as a threat, or that they didn't intend for the President to do what he did, or to go as far as he did.

The Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government based upon separation of powers. For our government to function as intended, each branch of government must fulfill its constitutional obligations. In the case of war, for a war to be legitimate under the Constitution, it must be declared by Congress. A declaration differs qualitatively from a mere authorization, expressing a will of the Congress, and of the people, that is, presumably, motivated by some very significant cause.

As the Congress has not declared war against Iraq, our invasion of that nation is not consistent with the US Constitution. As the invasion is not consistent with the Constitution, it is not a war conducted under legitimate authority.

Therefore, the war in Iraq fails the first criteria of just war theory.

GP

Next Just War Principle: The war must be undertaken as a last resort.

Just War and Iraq, An Introduction

Just War Theory is a long-standing concept in the Christian tradition designed to try and understand, morally, when it is appropriate to use mechanisms of war. There are some Christians who argue that there is no such thing as a "just" war, and reject this tradition. It appears as if most Christians in the modern world would accept the propriety of war under some circumstances. The question is, under what circumstances.

My plan, over the next several days, is to go point by point through Just War theory and apply that theory to the US invasion in Iraq.

My reason? I believe that I and others have too often gotten lost in tactical or strategic thinking, and moved too far away from moral thinking about the war. It is morality that matters above all else. If the morality of the decision was wrong, then there are no strategies that can make it right.

I believe our failure to focus on the morality of the decision to go to war in Iraq has been a great failing for our nation, and a consequence of this great failure has been other moral failures- such as the American acquiesence in the torture of detainees.

Only by focusing our minds and hearts squarely on the supreme moral issues can we hope to begin to swing ourselves around and move in the right direction.

Tomorrow I'll take on the first aspect of Just War Theory as it applies to the war in Iraq: A just war must be declared by a legitmate authority.

GP