Posted on 02/20/2003 7:33:12 AM PST by SLB
Last week we saw a series of diplomatic maneuvers and disputes that threaten to alter Americas relationship to NATO permanently. Germany, France, and Belgium vetoed a proposal to defend Turkey in the case of an Iraqi attack.
The actions of our erstwhile allies prompted a Washington Post editorial called "Standing with Saddam." In it, the Post concluded that German and French efforts were designed to check American actions, not Saddam Husseins. These efforts, the Post said, "could poison international relations for years to come."
We need to understand what is driving this serious dispute and why President Bush appears to be so insistent on pushing a confrontation with Iraq, even if it means war and a breakdown of our relations with Germany and France.
In last years State of the Union address, the president pointedly referred to what he called the "Axis of Evil": Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.
While such a moral description sounds alien in this postmodern age, it conveys the essence of the Bush doctrine for fighting terrorism. We live in a world where the greatest danger does not come from nation-states like Russia that can be deterred by the risk of nuclear annihilation.
Instead, the risk comes from groups like al-Qaeda that transcend national borders. But these groups, you see, can only exist because they are harbored and aided by rogue states like Iraq. The terrorists need their weapons.
We could try to stop the terrorists one cell at a time, but that is almost impossible. Some will get through, and many civilians will die needlessly. What you do instead is follow a well established military doctrine: Go for the source of their supply. That means confronting Iraq directly, and then others in the Axis of Evil. Stop the weapons, and you cripple the terrorists. The "Axis of Evil" was not just a clever speechwriters phrase. It was a deliberate signal of a new policy to keep the world safe.
Nations like France and Germany are living in the pre-September 11 past. They think diplomacy and sanctions will contain rogue states, but they do not, as Iraqs continued defiance of the UN shows.
The Bush policy raises serious new questions for us: Can this kind of preemptive action against rogue states that feed the terrorists be reconciled with the just war doctrine? George Weigel, a theologian and expert on just war, says, "Yes."
As he wrote in First Things, just war starts with the "moral judgment" that our leaders are "under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom [they have] assumed responsibility." Fulfilling this responsibility requires enforcing "minimal international norms of order."
According to Weigel, just war not only permits preemptive action, but it also demands it. To say otherwise would be to render the doctrine irrelevant in todays world and leave us with two amoral alternatives: cynical self-interest or what Weigel calls a "free-fire zone."
So it is a time for a conversation to be led by Christians on how the just war tradition should apply to this new and unique set of circumstances because today the alternative to just war isnt peace; it is something too awful to contemplate.
They never had to, because Clinton never took action in the interests of America, therefore he never met the basic premise for just war: just war starts with the "moral judgment" that our leaders are "under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom [they have] assumed responsibility." And that is one of the main reasons we on the right attacked Clinton so doggedly - he and his witch wife were as anti-American as the organizers of the antiwar protests, and was more concerned with the interests of other countries, not ours.
And you in turn are correct that we should be very, very careful about programs we implement in the name of security - any such programs should clearly define how they will improve security, be targeted in nature, have a review and oversight process, and sunset provisions. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act passed with none of those, but things have improved since then - the Homeland Security Act, despite claims the the contrary, was probably a net improvement in the situation, and TIA looks like it's gonna be DOA, as provisions putting it on hold were inserted into the omnibus budget bill. So this country seems to have recovered from the intial shock of 9/11, and is taking a closer look at what is being proposed in the name of security.
Maybe people are just asking the right questions and reaching some very rational conclusions, such as:
Nobody's going to stick a probe up my @ss at an airport in the name of "security" until the heads of the FBI, CIA, INS, etc. are either sacked or resign in disgrace.
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.