-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
As a theory of war fighting, “just war” is historically understood as a cluster of restrictions and expectations: what is acceptable and unacceptable when deciding to wage war, during the execution of conflict and after the hostilities have ceased. Theoretically, there are three conditions for a Just War: Jus ad bellum (the justice of going to war), jus in bello (justice during the war) and jus post bellum (justice after the war). The first condition is based on what justice must be demonstrated to resort to war. Concepts of just cause blend with best intentions and the reasonable hope that going to war will cause more good than harm and that is realistic to believe that this cause will be achieved. The second stipulation pertains to the conduct of a just war. Jus in bello is based on the presumption that noncombatants will be given the immunity and protection they deserve and that military action will be minimal, yet proportionate to an end result that produces more harm than good.
For my money, the third condition is the most difficult to satisfy. Justice after the war demands the development of law and order that protects human rights, establishes a lawful, working government and reconciles the victims and aggressors before the a court of justice While both ends of the political spectrum have come to support these nation-building efforts at different times, the notion that underlying problems caused by failed (or failing) states and the reconstitution of indigenous state institutions can only be solved through the long-term security endeavors of outsider powers to is contentious. Issues abound: it is rarely the case that local institutions are strong enough to help pick up the pieces of the failed states that created them; outside nation-builders find themselves making all the important decisions because they are reluctant to allow their protégés learn from their own mistakes; and, nation-builders often lack the clarity to recognize their own impact on the new country (or countries) they have divined from conquest.
Present circumstances have raised further of questions about America’s commitments overseas. Whose obligation is it to stay and fight until Iraqis and Afghanis show that they are capable of governing themselves effectively? Whose duty is it to not only end Ghaddafi’s atrocities but also institute a successor? Beyond the nuts and bolts and physical commitments of troops and treasure, the question of sovereignty remains difficult to define and external obstacles facing weak or failing states linger. The ultimate purpose is to create state order and to ensure sustained institutional structures that defend human rights and build regional stability.
Putting theory into practice, what can just war theory tell us about America’s recent conflicts? It is fair to say that the United States, working in coalition with other states under international mandate, has a moral right and special obligation to defend the world’s innocents against genocide, mutilation, enslavement, and mass terror. But this is not the time of Aquinas or Augustine — the progenitors of the just war debate. Nor should we forget that their “just” wars were fought for debatable reasons, in a bloody ruthless manner and often resulted in regime change, civilian casualty, sickness and famine. In contrast, the first Gulf War might have been as “just” as they come. Approved by the UN to restore peace and expel an aggressor, it restored regional security without altering regimes or costing civilian lives. It was justified, and executed in fair and reasonable terms. Yes, Iraq remained under the control of a savage, and Kuwait’s autonomy was returned to the monarchy. But peace was restored, and for a little more than a decade, this just war made the world a safer place.
However, the second Bush administration’s decision to author a new doctrine of unilateral force based on the use preventive warfare to dismantle threats that were hardly imminent represented a sharp departure from just war norms. The burden of proof was on President Bush; it was his responsibility to make a convincing case that the conflict would not result in precisely the unintended and untoward consequences that cost the lives of untold thousands in the resulting civil war.
In hindsight, there was no compelling reason to fight the war in Iraq. There was no new legitimate evidence, no precipitating event, no threatening actions by the Iraqi government. While the immediacy of terrorism’s global expansion demanded action, and the war in Afghanistan was absolutely fought for good cause and on good terms, the traditional jus ad bellum principles — just cause, right intention, right authority, reasonable hope of success, and proportionality of good achieved over harm — was not reasonably satisfied in Iraq. The danger posed the United States, and the international order, by Saddam Hussein’s regime was neither clear, nor direct. However repellent his autocracy, lacking imminent threat, it was not justified to enter into a long, bloody war that was likely to wreak at least some modicum of havoc on a civilian population decimated by war and sanctions.
A sad legacy to leave behind.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/16/a-just-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
WJ| 12.16.11 @ 2:33PM
A well thought out post. Thank you for your adherence to the truth, no matter how repulsive it might seem to some people.
The ability to see and speak the truth seems to be lacking in many conservative circles these days.
Wayne| 12.17.11 @ 12:26PM
The truth? He ignored the attack on Kuwait, the cease fire, the food for oil scam, the WMD attack on the Kurds and the violations of the terms of the cease fire. So what truth are you referring to?
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 3:14PM
"In hindsight, there was no compelling reason to fight the war in Iraq. There was no new legitimate evidence, no precipitating event, no threatening actions by the Iraqi government."
George Galloway vs Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZnUIeKOIgc
IF you really believe this, that there was no justification for liberating the Iraqis, then you sir have no sense of morality.
Reid Smith| 12.16.11 @ 3:23PM
It's not our obligation to liberate the world, my friend.
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 4:42PM
Am I my brothers keeper?
As the leading military/political/economic power in the world do we not have any obligations?
Your question could very easily come out of Nutter Paul's mouth.
Red Phillips | 12.16.11 @ 4:23PM
Needless to say, starting a war with Iran because they might be making a nuke which they then might use does not meet Christian Just War criteria. Only one of the Republican candidates understands this.
Regarding the First Gulf War, Kuwait obviously had just cause to resist invasion, but the US had no "special obligation" to fight their battle for them.
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 4:46PM
So you would be fine with one of the worst regimes in modern times...(and that's saying quite a bit) sitting on the worlds largest supply of oil and using those funds to blackmail the world, while using the same funds to acquire nuclear weapons?
Wow! Astounding...and not in a good way.
Sean| 12.16.11 @ 5:31PM
There have been a ton of bad regimes in modern times. A lot of them were a lot worse than Iran. Look at China. They are way worse than Iran yet we trade with them. Chinese generals by the way have threatened to nuke us.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 5:43PM
LOL--another guy who was scared of Saddam.
Steve, what do you think about the officially sanctioned lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11 as a means of gaining political support for the war?
Did the justice of the Iraq war warrant that level of lie?
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 6:47PM
Lie?
Ever hear of ansar al-islam? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?
The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.amazon.com/Connecti.....0060746734
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 6:51PM
Those are tin foil hat conspiracy theories from Stephen Hayes who should be in prison next to Assange for leaking stolen documents.
I guess, by neocon doctrine, he could just be assassinated, but I support due process.
Okay, maybe Hayes should be sent to Gitmo until he tells his sources.
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 6:59PM
Translation: I don't agree with him therefore he must be a conspiracy nut.
Now this is just a crazy idea, right out there on the edge...I'm giving you that.
Instead of throwing accusations about an author why not do something really wacky like read what he has to say?
Reid Smith| 12.16.11 @ 7:02PM
I didn't read his book, but I read the article that inspired it. It's wishful-thinking masquerading as postulation.
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 8:51PM
Translation: I didn't agree with it, therefore it must be conjecture.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 10:07PM
I don't think Stephen Hayes is anything but a joke, and someone who richly deserves to feel the force of the laws he advocates.
Red Phillips | 12.16.11 @ 5:44PM
Steve, perhaps you would like to respond to what I wrote. Bombing a country because they might get nukes that they then might use does not meet Christian Just War criteria. This is not debatable. It doesn’t. The criteria aren't always clear cut and leave some room for debate, but not here. Not only does bombing a country because they might use a weapon they might get obviously not meet Christian Just War criteria, it is not even preemptive war. It is preventative war which is unequivocally condemned.
If you would like to tell me that my reading of Christian Just War theory is incorrect, then be my guest, but you will be making a fool of yourself if you do.
Steve| 12.16.11 @ 6:55PM
I would say not bombing a nation ruled by the people who run Iran would be immoral.
Do you understand the kind of regime the Mullahs have set up, and the theology unlying their rule?
They think they can bring about the return of the hidden Imam by causing WWIII. They get nuclear weapons the will use them.
chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:12AM
Red,
A couple of thoughts I'd like your opinion on.
1. We are not dealing with fellow Christians here. They have a radically different view than we do. We respect human freedom, and the religious choices people make for themselves. They believe in converting, enslaving, or killing the "infidels". This is a basic tenet of their faith. Also, their faith tells them it is okay to lie to the infidel, if it is a way to convert,enslave,or kill them. How do you tell the good from the bad? Or those who want to live in peace from those who wish us harm?
2. Peace is the way, but not at certain times in history. Herbert Hoover's book says we should have, and could have avoided WWII. Given that the Japanese and the Nazis were both working on the atomic bomb, how would this had played out if we had not entered the war WHEN we did. Is it at all possible that by avoiding the conflict, or delaying our entry, that the Nazis or the Japanese could have successfully developed the atomic bomb. How radically different would the world be today?
We of course can have no definitive answers, we entered the war, and history is as it is. But looking forward in the same light, is it not possible that the best course of action is to remove a terrible regime in Iran before they develop a nuclear weapon?
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 5:45PM
Very good, Mr. Smith.
Carry on.
With God all things r possible| 12.16.11 @ 11:30PM
Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire signed in January 1991. We had all the legal and moral right to take them down. They also had at least some weapons of mass destruction left (they were found after the 2003 war) and they had both the ability and the demonstrated intent to build a whole new batch the moment they could get away with it. The Soviet convoy that got blasted to pieces near the Syrian border were apparently carrying some of the worst WMDs out of Iraq on the eve of the 2003 invasion; the rest went into the water or into the sand.
In short, we were the very model of restraint during those 12 years from 1991 to 2003. The wisdom of the invasion will be long debated, but just cause, we had that.
C Bowen | 12.17.11 @ 7:04AM
Repeating lies from the Weekly Standard doesn't make them true.
And this is a conservative web site, and an article discussing Just War, so violating UN Resolutions doesn't carry any weight.
Anyway, who forged and promoted the Nigerian Yellow Cake documents and when can we send them to Gitmo?
With God all things r possible| 12.17.11 @ 6:51PM
The conditions of the cease fire were not U.N. resolutions. It was, at a minimum, an agreement by the government of Iraq to abide by the cease-fire rules of the government of the United States. In essence, it said, if Iraq does X and/or fails to do Y, then the U.S. may resume hostilities. What's unjust about holding the Iraqis government to its word?
As it happens, none of what I've read in many sources on this subject was in the Weekly Standard, to my recollection.
Furthermore, accusing others of laziness, single-source research and repeating lies only highlights the weakness of your own argument. Showing a surly attitude on top of it only undermines your credibility.
C Bowen | 12.17.11 @ 7:33PM
If any of that were true regarding your "feelings", surely you must have been deeply concerned that forged documents by Italian intelligence associates with links to prominent neoconservatives suggesting Iraq had purchased yellow cake uranium from Nigeria, and puzzled at why there was never an investigation?
The conditions and the legality of the Iraq invasion was United Nations.
Iraq never attacked my country--did Iraq attack yours?
With God all things r possible| 12.17.11 @ 10:18PM
"Feelings"? What are you talking about?
I have made the argument that Iraq's violation of the cease fire agreement made in 1991 justifies a resumption of hostilities, and that this justification is cut of the same cloth as are the just war arguments, namely that they made an agreement and it is right to hold them to it. I also stated that various WMDs have been found (nerve gas shells, etc.) since the 2003 invasion. I never mentioned yellowcake once.
You have first ignored my primary argument; second, used thinly veiled anti-Jewish slurs (Weekly Standard, neocons), with other ad hominem retorts; and third, brought out other arguments that I have never used, apparently in the hopes that something will stick.
I invite your attention to the terms of discussion on this site: "N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article...Please be respectful." If you cannot keep these terms, you really do need to go somewhere else.
Wayne| 12.17.11 @ 12:20PM
We need to get the facts right. The war in Iraq was started by George Bush 1after Saddam's attack on Kuwait. What I remember is that everyone was for it. Even the UN. Then after getting defeated in the desert, Bush signed a peace fire. Saddam after some years violated all the terms of the peace fire. He even entered into a cozy corrupt deal with the son of the leader of the UN in the oil for food scam. So that pretty much brought an end to the cease fire agreement.
I would say in hind sight, it was right to attack Saddam once again. However what was wrong was trying to build a new nation. That should have been left to the Iraq people and any further cease fire should have excluded the UN.
Skippy| 12.17.11 @ 2:00PM
When faced with a street full of threatening bullies with ill intent, the best option is to whack the biggest and ugliest thug first.
No WMD's?
B.F.D.
The Arabs have learned again that actions and threats and bluffs have serious consequences.
My only regrets are that we lingered too long after crushing the Saddam regime, and that we didn't redeploy to Saudi Arabia.
If 9/11 should have taught us anything, it is that fortune favors the bold.
Handwringers and attorneys will complete the implementation of the new American suicide pact.
C Bowen | 12.17.11 @ 7:35PM
You have it all backwards--you have been duped.
The policy of the United States (Clinton-Bush-Obama) is to create an Islamic states, be it from Orthodox Serbia lands, Iraq, Egypy, Libya (soon Syria.)
The Arabs are laughing at you.
Skippy| 12.18.11 @ 10:58AM
OK
That explains the newfound kinship between our cultures. They do love us so, and show it often.
Interesting that we are creating Muslim states by invading Muslim nations and killing scads of jihadis. Hmmm...
So, by your reasoning, if we had gone the Ron Paul route, the Islamists would be less committed to our destruction, and might not have gained an electoral majority in Egypt.
In other words, had we absorbed 9/11 without harming any Muslims, we would have won.
And the "Arab Spring" would have arisen all on its own as the Islamists faded to insignificance.
Thanks for the advice.
Next time I'm attacked, I'll surrender immediately.
That will assure victory.
Clint| 12.18.11 @ 6:04PM
Veteran Officer Dr.Ron Paul Knows History And Doesn't Want Our American Warriors Used As Cannon Fodder For The Global Police Agendists.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316304
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.