Just War -- or a Just War? [New York Times]
While I respect President Carter tremendously and his commitment to peace and justice in the world, I have some issues with his criteria for a just war:
Carter: The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
While it could be argued that all nonviolent options have not been exhausted, the question is whether any of those nonviolent options would be effective in the desired goal: forcing Saddam's compliance with numerous UN resolutions and removing his threat from the region and the world. Twelve years of history argues that they will not. Simply because the French say that all nonviolent means have not been exhausted does not mean it is true. I think Bush could make a case that a war in Iraq satisfies this condition.
As an aside, and I'm no expert on this, I believe that as a part of the agreement to end hostilities in 1991, Saddam promised to disarm. Would that not mean that since he violated the agreement, the other party (the U.N) is free to resume the war? In what sense, then, is it pre-emptive?
Carter: The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
On this point, Carter argues the pacifist position. He states that "Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in 'collateral damage.'" If this is the case, then no modern war can ever be considered just (including World War II). While I have sympathy with this idea, as I have doubts about whether or not war with modern weaponry is by its very nature unjust, I do not believe it belongs in this discussion. If Carter believes this, then he should have been arguing for the pacifist position rather than the just war position.
Carter: Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
What about the injury to the Iraqi people? The Kuwaitis? Iran? Israel? If we are trying to think about this in internationalist and multilateral terms, then clearly significant injury has occurred.
Carter: The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
Carter argues that since there is likely to be opposition in the Security Council, the war cannot be just. But what if the motives of those opposing such a move are murky? There is evidence that at least the French and Russians are protecting their selfish geopolitical interests (primarily, oil contracts) by opposing war. Furthermore, there is some speculation that the French may be worried that their violation of UN sanctions with regard to Iraq will be unearthed. I don't know for sure that these conflicts of interest have tainted their vote, but it cannot be ruled out. And in that case, it could be argued that the war could be just despite the opposition of other nations, simply because the opponents have "unclean hands."
Carter: The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
Here Carter takes up the fear mongering that so much of the left has fallen to of late. Yes, potentially a war against Iraq could lead to the collapse of the universe as we know it. But just as Bush's rosy projections are likely wrong, so are the dire predictions of the anti-war left. The reality is likely something in the middle - perhaps which looks a lot like Afghanistan. Not a perfect situation, but certainly a clear improvement over what exists there today. An Iraq without weapons of mass destruction and with a democratically elected government, even with some degree of ethnic violence, would seem to be a large improvement over the current reality.
My bottom line with regard to Iraq is that I believe everyone, in both the pro- and anti-war camps, have decided to disregard the truth for the sake of their ideology. Mr. Bush committed himself too soon to the course of war (probably shortly after 9/11), and is therefore rushing into it before the facts clearly warrant such action. But the French, Germans, and Russians are unwilling to ever have a war against Iraq, either for selfish reasons or ideological ones (or perhaps both). And the mainstream anti-war movement is led by the same old school leftist voices which were wrong in 1991 and are likely wrong again.
Only God knows what the truth is with regard to Iraq, and we can only pray that His will would be done, regardless of the motivations of all of the actors involved.
10:01:19 AM 
|
.