Saturday, December 10, 2005
The war in Iraq is still getting a flap in the news lately. You'd think they'd have found something new to holler about by now but the argument still rages over whether or not the war was justified. At risk of giving away the ending, those who claim it does not meet the standards for a just war show not their knowledge of the facts but rather their ignorance of just war theory. For example, the first plank in the just war platform is what's known as "just cause." Here it is normal for defenders of the war to declare that nothing is more just than removing an evil man from power and for its detractors to argue that the war is all about oil...which explains the high gas prices we've been suffering, but I digress. There is more to it than that.
Just Cause is a little more complicated than whether or not the aims are justified. First, just cause can be "the protection and preservation of value." This has a rather broad meaning, as I suppose even Saddam Hussein could say he invaded Kuwait in 1990 to restore the Babylonian Empire and protect his culture and his oil (the actual war for oil in the Middle East). But the United Nations Charter declares irrevocably that human rights are a value to be protected and preserved. So it would seem that war made on a government blatantly guilty of anti-human rights action would meet this requirement easily. Furthermore, the case must rest on "defense of the innocent against armed attack." This case was easily made in the Gulf War when "innocent" Kuwaitis were overthrown by unprovoked aggression on the part of Iraq. Anti-war protestors sniff that the "innocent" Iraqi people are suffering from the US invasion. But, it is simple to point to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of "innocent" Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds who were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq's reckless pursuit of WMD (yes, I am still emphasizing that because it's still true) endangered many others. Innocent Israelis, Jordanians, Turks, Iranians, Saudis, other Iraqis, Egyptians, even into eastern Europe and beyond would have been in danger had Iraq been capable of going nuclear or of using chemical or biological weapons. Hussein had the capabilities and the will to use them. Would it be wise to wait till he did? The third plank is "retaking of persons, property, or other values wrongly taken." This one is not quite as involved in the Iraq War as some of the others, but it is necessary to point out that no proponents of just war theory ever argue that a war must meet all the requirement to be a just war, only that you must do your best to meet said requirements. The fourth plank is "punishment of evil." Iraq's mass graves speak for themselves. If you don't want to call Hussein evil, neither was Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Also, I can't help you. No one can. Later variations of the theory posit the power of positive international law, entailing "national or regional self-defense against armed attack," "retaliation for armed attack" and "international response to threats to international peace." The last is so obviously met in this war it needs no introduction. The other two are cited by opponents as proof the war is not justified. They sneeringly deride President Bush's plea that times have changed as him trying to change the rules to give himself a war he wanted. But the fact remains: he's right. The original just war theory was evolved in a time when attack meant moving an enemy army into the territory of another, something that involved time, both for the invader and the nation under attack. Nowadays, with technology exploding worldwide, a terrorist in a camp in the mountains of Afghanistan can engineer an attack to kill thousands of civilians...and nobody has any idea it's coming till its too late. Self-defense does not assume you wait until attacked. It actually plays into a later element of just war theory--"proportionality of means"--but more on that later. For now, just realize that under the first rule of just war--"Just Cause"--the Iraq War passes with flying colors.
Just Cause is a little more complicated than whether or not the aims are justified. First, just cause can be "the protection and preservation of value." This has a rather broad meaning, as I suppose even Saddam Hussein could say he invaded Kuwait in 1990 to restore the Babylonian Empire and protect his culture and his oil (the actual war for oil in the Middle East). But the United Nations Charter declares irrevocably that human rights are a value to be protected and preserved. So it would seem that war made on a government blatantly guilty of anti-human rights action would meet this requirement easily. Furthermore, the case must rest on "defense of the innocent against armed attack." This case was easily made in the Gulf War when "innocent" Kuwaitis were overthrown by unprovoked aggression on the part of Iraq. Anti-war protestors sniff that the "innocent" Iraqi people are suffering from the US invasion. But, it is simple to point to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of "innocent" Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds who were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq's reckless pursuit of WMD (yes, I am still emphasizing that because it's still true) endangered many others. Innocent Israelis, Jordanians, Turks, Iranians, Saudis, other Iraqis, Egyptians, even into eastern Europe and beyond would have been in danger had Iraq been capable of going nuclear or of using chemical or biological weapons. Hussein had the capabilities and the will to use them. Would it be wise to wait till he did? The third plank is "retaking of persons, property, or other values wrongly taken." This one is not quite as involved in the Iraq War as some of the others, but it is necessary to point out that no proponents of just war theory ever argue that a war must meet all the requirement to be a just war, only that you must do your best to meet said requirements. The fourth plank is "punishment of evil." Iraq's mass graves speak for themselves. If you don't want to call Hussein evil, neither was Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Also, I can't help you. No one can. Later variations of the theory posit the power of positive international law, entailing "national or regional self-defense against armed attack," "retaliation for armed attack" and "international response to threats to international peace." The last is so obviously met in this war it needs no introduction. The other two are cited by opponents as proof the war is not justified. They sneeringly deride President Bush's plea that times have changed as him trying to change the rules to give himself a war he wanted. But the fact remains: he's right. The original just war theory was evolved in a time when attack meant moving an enemy army into the territory of another, something that involved time, both for the invader and the nation under attack. Nowadays, with technology exploding worldwide, a terrorist in a camp in the mountains of Afghanistan can engineer an attack to kill thousands of civilians...and nobody has any idea it's coming till its too late. Self-defense does not assume you wait until attacked. It actually plays into a later element of just war theory--"proportionality of means"--but more on that later. For now, just realize that under the first rule of just war--"Just Cause"--the Iraq War passes with flying colors.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 11:40 PM 
