Posted on 11/20/2002 9:10:23 AM PST by NorCoGOP
WALTHAM, Mass. -- Take two people, John and Alice. John learns that Alice is seeking to physically harm him. He also remembers that she has tried to hurt him before. John knows that by striking Alice first, he can protect himself and others around him from her aggression. Acting on this set of premises, John decides to pre-emptively weaken Alice, saving himself. Are John's actions morally defensible?
The John-Alice scenario above reflects a simplified version of the current situation with Iraq.
Philosophers, theologians and jurists have discussed this scenario over the course of many years as part of what is commonly known as the "Just War Theory." Through this theory and the opinions of contemporary experts in philosophy and legality, striking first in Iraq is strategically and therefore morally justifiable.
Just War Theory concerns itself with two types of moral evaluation, jus ad bellum, the justice of war and jus in bello, justice in war. For the purposes of evaluating whether a first strike against Iraq is justifiable, we are concerned with jus ad bellum.
The first proponents, and thus creators, of the "Just War Theory" predate any of the key figures or academics involved in the world today. St. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1225-1274), in his "Summa Theologicae," outlines three basic preconditions that he deems necessary for a country to start a war. "First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged ... Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault ... Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil."
Without stretching, all three of these criterions are met by the current relationship between President Bush, the United States military, Saadam Hussein and Iraq.
Several compelling examples, highlighted by several academics, are most pertinent to the justice of an attack on Iraq.
Harold Hongju Koh, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, defends a pre-emptive strike by the United States on Libya and Moammar Kadhafi in 1986. The targeted bombings killed both military and civilian personnel, inflicting much external collateral damage. Explicitly invoking this concept of a justifiable pre-emptive strike, President Ronald Reagan stated: "We believe this pre-emptive attack against terrorists' installations will diminish Colonel Kadhafi's capacity to export terror"
Michael Walzer, in his "Just and Unjust Wars," defends Israel's pre-emptive strike on Egyptian warplanes still grounded on the eve of the Six Day War in 1967. Israel rightly attacked, erasing a significant portion of an Egyptian army that was aimed at the imminent destruction of Israel. The attack was in response to an immediate danger and was proportional to the threat.
An example often cited by critics was the successful restraint exhibited by the United States in the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba, a mere hundred miles from United States soil, presented a clear and present danger, and yet the United States diffused the situation diplomatically, with no fighting or casualties.
Critics also cite a possible opening of the floodgates, were the United States to decide to strike, because of the self-judging nature of the decision deciding if a strike is necessary.
Defending United States attacks, Harold Koh invokes five important arguments. Defending itself against an Iraqi nuclear threat, forcing a regime change, continuing the war against terrorism and righting gross human rights abuses are all as reasons to attack. Most importantly, Iraq has violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions passed in 1990 and 1991.
Going to war with Iraq and killing thousands of innocent civilians would indeed strip from the United States the moral high ground it stands on in its war against terrorism. The United States, however, must not back down in any sense from erasing the Iraqi threat. As the world's only super power, the United States is often called a "bully" for reaching its hand into foreign regimes. But this logic can easily be rotated, arguing that U.S. power should be exercised to weaken a threat that compromises the security of humanity as a whole.
This past Thursday night at a Brandeis anti-war teach-in, Jim Kershner stated that he was "appalled by the happiness seen in the eyes of Americans when we blew up an al Qaeda operative's car -- this is the murder of a human being. "But, in Kershner's attempt to gain the moral high ground, he highlighted a common mistake made by anti-war proponents. The citizens of the United States received a shock on Sept. 11. The smiles on their faces when an al Qaeda mastermind was killed were not the cold-blooded smiles of murderers. Americans were happy because of the erasure of a murderer from this world.
In going to war with Iraq, we must avoid drowning in good intentions. We must avoid the deaths of innocents. But, these are not reasons for the injustice of war (jus ad bellum). They are things we must be careful of within war (jus in bello). For 10 years, Sadaam Hussein has danced around U.N. inspectors and harbored terrorist organizations. We are doing only justice to this world by weakening his ability to inflict more damage on still others.
In the post September 11th world, we have learned a new meaning of the word "imminent." Because of Iraq's constant threat, and because for over a decade Iraq has been warned not to continue to build weapons of mass-destruction, a strike proportional to those threats is justified.
What the critics miss is that Cuba wasn't the real problem, it was Russia and to get into a shooting war at the time might very well have trashed the whole world in nuclear Boom-Booms. Iraq is a whole different animal...
Only by standing logic on its head: by the assuming the absolute worst about FDR's intentions toward Imperial Japan (all historical evidence aside), and by severe rationalization of Imperial Japan's war aims, could anyone advance the argument that Japan's strike at Pearl Harbor fit the defintion of a "just war" or a justified pre-emptive strike.
And it did too, for a good long while.
But not without waving around a might big stick for the Soviets to see and contemplate. We knew that their "stick" wasn't as big, or as ready, as they would have had us believe, but they didn't know that we knew. So while there was no force involved, there was the threat of force, which led to the diplomatic solution. Without that threat, and the credible force to back it up, we'd probably be speaking Russian, if we were around at all to speak anything.
I'm sure most of us would be just a happy to have the current situtation with Iraq end without the use of military force, as long as it ended with Saddamn and his minions on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity and the Iraqies a free people. Given the nature of folks like Saddam, that's not likely to happen though. The least violent thing that is likly to end it would be for the Iraqis themselves to give him and his henchmen the Mussolini lampost treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.