When when studies philosophical ethics, one of the topics raised is the issue of a Just War. These principles are centuries old and still held, by most philosophers to be valid.
They are, in a nutshell:
A just war can only be waged as a last resort.
A just war must be sanctioned by legitimate authorities.
A just war can only be waged to redress a wrong or wrongs suffered.
A just war can only be fought when there is a reasonable chance of success.
A just war must have, as a goal, restoring peace.
A just war must be waged proportionally to the injuries suffered.
A just war must be carried out in a way that it discriminates between combatants and non-combatants.
One of the criticisms of the current War in Iraq was that many questioned if the war, from the outset, was a just war. This particular war, at this time, does not seem to meet enough of the criteria.
First, was this a last resort? Hardly. We were not in danger of being invaded, we were not in danger from WMD's, and Iraq was hardly a major player in the Middle East any longer.
Secondly, was it sanctioned by legitimate authorities. Quite frankly, the United States ought to fight in declared wars and only the Congress has the authority to declare a war. However, Presidents have placed troops in situations and such so this was probably sanctioned by a legitimate authority. Besides, Congress did not put up any major opposition.
Thirdly, was this war waged to redress wrongs that we had suffered. Not in the least. Iraq was not a threat----UN weapons inspectors told us this. Iraq was not responsible or behind 9/11 (though it was often implied.) This war was not waged to redress wrongs we had suffered.
Fourthly, is there a reasonable chances of success? I am doubtful. Iraqis are fighting one another and us at the same time. We are being shot at by all sides of the combatants in a civil war. Historical precedent does not indicate that nations intervening in civil wars have much chances of success.
Fifthly, is the goal to bring about peace. One would think so. President Bush, however, speaks of victory but has yet to define victory. Until there is a definition of victory that includes peace, we are not in good territory here.
Sixthly, the war must be waged proportionally to injuries suffered. As we did not suffer injuries from the nation of Iraq, this is not met.
Lastly, the war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. This is difficult. When one fights an insurgency it is difficult to determine who is friend and who is foe. I do believe our military does attempt to make these distinctions.
The difficulty with this war boiled down to several issues:
First, we invaded a sovereign nation. This is not an approach which the United States has generally used. Most of our invasions in the past have been in either occupied nations where we were freeing another people, or against nations against whom we were previously at war, redressing ills.
Secondly, our reasons for invading Iraq were bogus at worst, questionable at best. Saddam Hussein was a wretched individual who gave pond scum a good name. He was a cruel tyrant. he was, however, not our problem. The policies of containment put in place by George Bush I, and Bill Clinton were working. Iraq was not a threat. UN weapons inspectors did a thorough inspection of the country and found nothing. We yelled at Iraq to 'come clean' and when they did not hand over the weapons that they did not have, we invaded. Additionally, allusions were made to 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Thirdly, we do need to fight a war on terror. I believe that our invasion and fighting of the Taliban in Afghanistan was warranted and was just. I have no issue with fighting a war on terror; the problem is, Iraq is not the problem.
Fourthly, be honest. Syria and Iran were and still are the biggest terrorist threats. Our military forces are spread out in to theaters of operation and, frankly, we can't do much about Iran and Syria.
I find this whole war to be distressing and it is getting worse. The Senate is too busy trying to attack Moveon.org's questionable ad as a diversion from actually dealing with the war. Senate Republicans have successfully blocked any action and the Democrats have not demonstrated the fortitude to cut funding.
My great concern is for our troops. Our military people, in my experience, are very fine, very committed people. They are willing to fight and if necessary, die for their country. Our troops are spending tours of duty which are too long, using equipment that is not protecting them, and are often exhausted. There are few 'down places' away from the front. They are in the middle of a violent civil war and in constant danger. Increasingly National Guard troops are being used.
We are increasingly vulnerable to bad stuff happening to us. Our military forces are maxed out and we have little to no ability to respond any place else.
Most invaders do not generally do well in the long run. The theory of a just war may be old, and may seem quaint and irrelevant to some, but the just war theory was devised to assure that people and nations think before they jumped into the quagmire of war. This principle was ignored and the consequences have been dreadful.
No comments:
Post a Comment