Replies

Then he is totally ignorant of Just War doctrine. Iraq is a Just War under the doctrine.

Just War Doctrine.

Just cause

The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice

While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. Legitimate authority

Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. Right intention

Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success

Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort

Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Proportionality

Then he is totally ignorant of Just War doctrine. Iraq is a Just War under the doctrine.

Meaning no disrespect, but it seems that some of the posters on this thread are perhaps a little ignorant of the article under discussion.

Look, I'll summarize:

The author does not discuss the Morality of the Iraq War at all.
His critique has to do with certain Iraq Occupation policies, and related Middle Eastern policy in general.
He says that handing out loads of weapons to a bunch of Muslims, even if they're "our S.O.B.s" (for now), is a bad idea.

I'd think that on Free Republic, an article suggesting that "Militarily Arming a bunch of Muslims is a Bad Idea", would be given more careful reading and more thoughtful analysis. Yes, he's criticizing US Middle Eastern policy. Boo-Hoo. But is he making a valid point, in the areas he criticizes?

For myself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this: I agree with the author of this article. We should not be arming the Palestinian "police" militias. These weapons will eventually be turned on Israel.

There -- now I've taken a stand, pertinent to the article posted at the top of the thread, for your consideration. Would you care to agree, or disagree?