War is Evil

For the antiwar protestors, being the cause of over a million dead, having biological and chemical weapons, torturing people and invading a couple of your neighbors countries is, well, not so evil. Not so evil to fight, not so evil to defend against, and not so evil because their target is the United States.

A lot has been written about the motives of the so-called antiwar movement. Most talk about the duplicity of the folks who condemn the United States for wanting to strike a sovereign nation before that sovereign nation strikes us. "There is no imminent threat," seem to be the rallying cry of the protesters; however the rebuttal; if we wait for an attack, millions of Americans would die, remains unheeded.

The logical conclusion is that American lives mean little to the protesters. Even the Iraqi people, who have suffered under a brutal regime for decades mean little to the antiwar crowd, otherwise the protesters, would give at least equal time to protesting the oppression imposed on the Iraqi populace by Saddam Hussein.

People who are willing to risk the lives of millions of Americans and who also close their eyes to the Iraqi people's subjugation by Saddam in order to buttress their argument to stop the war, have motives that are not in the interest of the United States.

Much of the criticism vented at the protesters also speak of the intended or not intended help they are giving to the Iraqi dictator, that may or may not be true, but the fact that what they are accomplishing is detrimental to America and Americans is obvious.

It is very telling when a group will champion a despot and condemn a democratically elected President. It is ominous when that group's goal is to leave the United States vulnerable to a chemical or biological attack.

Being the world's sole superpower creates an aura of invincibility to conventional attack. However, after 9-11 those who despise the idea of America being a nationalistic superpower did find America's Achilles' heel.

They know America can normally deter any national power from attacking the US. They know that America cannot deter terrorists from doing damage. The one thing the terrorists need is state sponsorship for training and more importantly supplies. Namely, WMD's. If the protesters get their way, every despot on the planet with a yen for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons will not only have them, but will ensure that terrorists have them as well, just so long as they keep attacking the United States.

It may be more easily accepted that the demonstrators against American action in Iraq from Europe and elsewhere outside the US, who have been shown to have a strident dislike for the US, would not shed a tear if another 9-11, or something much larger occurred again. What's more difficult to accept are the Americans who join in their sentiment.

Looking at the situation America finds itself in today is a little like being a politician who gave the most compelling and articulate speech of his life only to look down and find his zipper was undone for all to see. It didn't matter what he said, all anyone saw or will remember is that failure to notice on his part.

America for most Americans is a force for good, a beacon of light for all other nations; however for many, it is a tree that needs cutting.

Pundits and pseudo intellectuals report the obstructionist policies of Germany as an aberration due to Germany's leaders' anti-American rhetoric during their campaign to get reelected. Now they have "put themselves in a box" and can't get out.

"France is just being France," or "They'll come around" when referring to France's opposition to American defense of itself.

They all miss the point. After 9-11, America and the world became acutely aware of American vulnerability. What we are seeing now is not just business as usual. America's interest in using force is for self-protection, nothing less. Yet, our former allies, France and Germany, and our new "friends," Russia and China, not only refuse to cooperate, but to not allow the United States to eliminate the threat to America's national well-being and possibly its very existence.

It was reported, "Millions march in protest around the world." Of course the numbers were reported in the media as "according to organizers," but few if any reports were describing the reality of the goals of those that protest America's war of survival.

Whether an individual or a group wants America destroyed and Americans dead, what should patriotic Americans feel about that individual or group?

To understand underlying motives or a "hidden agenda," one needs only to follow a proposal to its logical conclusion. If America does what France et al, proposes, Saddam Hussein stays in power; America is more vulnerable than ever. America will likely be hit again in a more devastating manner than ever before.

As far as why the Left, "old" Europe, and our "new friends" are concerned, peace in the world can only be achieved when there is no superpower, meaning, America as the sole superpower.

In an interview for Time magazine on February 16, 2003, when asked about America's sole superpower status French President Jacques Chirac said, "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions." In the same interview and "justifying" his antiwar stance said, "A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens."

France and others want Americans to buy into the notion that fighting the evil that threatens America helps our enemies. The proposition is preposterous when scrutinized, but does make for good sound bites.

Their proposition is ridiculous on several levels. It assumes that the evil ones only attack if actively provoked (as if the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and 9-11, never happened) and it proposes that defending ones self or one's country is an exercise in futility.

It's the proposition that we have already lost the war, though we may win all the battles. It is the Sheryl Crow School of diplomacy. If we don't fight those who seek our destruction, if we try to reason with terrorists and monsters, we won't have any enemies and harmony and tranquility shall reign.

What they purposefully ignore and more to the point, forget to mention, is who or what we will be as a nation and people when we decide that what we have, who we are, is no longer worth fighting for.

The protesters, the obstructionists, and the so-called "new friends" of America have sinister motives. They do not seek the "end of war," they seek the end of America as we know it.

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

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.