First a disclaimer. I've only skimmed the entire just war concept and do know that there is some disagreement as to whether or not the Iraq conflict could be considered just.

However I must admit to thinking about this. I've read here and there that, as my Spiritual Director puts it, "the Muslims are beating the Christians in the bedroom", meaning there are going to be a lot more Muslims in the future (France is now 70% muslim) than Christians.

I understand what you are saying Mark when you point to offerring up Clinton culture in post-war Iraq, but don't we have a better chance with more flow of information in Muslim countries, of at least showing a Bush culture? Or even the free flow of ideas and information allowing Muslims the chance to incorporate the better parts of modernization with the scricter moral code of Islam?

I know that's not a reason to go to war, and I believe our reasons for going are well founded, however, doesn't the world face a huge problem if radical Islam is the main motivating force behind Islam as the years continue?

I worry about a lot of things, and that is one of them. Continuing code orange!

Kathleen
Kathleen | 02.07.03 - 6:15 pm | #

So invasion of Iraq will be just and the Iraqis will be right to defend themselves and al Qaeda is right to continue to attack us (as long as they stick to military targets.) Am I following you so far?

Bill | 02.07.03 - 6:16 pm | #

Kathleen:

70% Muslim?

I've been to France recently and unles there's been a mass invasion in the last year or so 7 out of 10 people in France are not Muslim...


Fr. Rob Johansen | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 6:21 pm | #

Spot on, Mark. As with the death penalty, I don't like the idea of this coming war, but I also despise the dishonest arguments put forth by most of its opponents. You know this dreck: "We have to work within the U.N." (why?); "There will be mass casualties" (probably not); "Bush just wants Iraq's oil" (nonsense), blah, blah, blah.

You (and Camille) have touched on the real questions that need to be answered about an Iraq war: What is our idea of a just peace in that region, and how will the forthcoming war help bring that peace about?
Jordan of Saxony | 02.07.03 - 6:23 pm | #

Fr. Rob:

I was listening to Hannity and he something like that. Maybe 70% of a certain city, I can't remember. I worried about posting that figure when I couldn't remember exactly what was said. But I do know this, that I've listen to several pundits and NROers state that the Muslim pop. in France and Germany is believed to be having an influence on the position of France and Germany with regard to the U.S./Iraq conflict.

I'll dig a bit and see if I can find the stat.

Kathleen
Kathleen | 02.07.03 - 6:33 pm | #

Jordan,

What about the argument that Iraq poses no credible threat to the US, even assuming for the sake of argument that Iraq is not in compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMDs?

Does Bush's silence about an exit plan from Iraq after what war advocates insist will be an easy victory lead you to suspect that a rather lengthy occupation is planned? Do you think that this might be a war of conquest after all or will this be merely a "preemptive" occupation? Does Bush's silence about a "just peace" raise any doubts about the claims made to justify this "just war"?


Bill | 02.07.03 - 6:36 pm | #

Fr. Rob,

Maybe that figure comes from a comparison of numbers relative to church-mosque attedance.

Bill | 02.07.03 - 6:38 pm | #

Kathleen:

A "Bush culture" is as doomed as a "Clinton culture". At the end of the day (and this is where JPII and Paglia part company), what the Muslim world needs is Jesus Christ. We are not going there with that goal in mind, which is a huge part of why the Pope is not a cheerleader for Our Side.

It is vital for American Catholics to remember that this country is as temporary as the Roman Empire. Only the Body of Christ will still be here on the Last Day.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 6:39 pm | #

Yes, that's better.

Supporters of this war point to Afghanistan as an example of a successful experiment with "regime change". Well, it's sort of successful, so far. Certainly it's an improvement on what came before.

But consider this: "what came before" was the Taliban, a regime of radical Islamicists, who themselves emerged out of the chaos of post-war Afghanistan just before the fall of the Soviet empire. They had been supported by various American governments supported the rebel groups that drove out the Soviets.

In pointing this out I am NOT trying to pull the "It's all your fault" line. (I'm not American.) I am sympathetic to the main problem of American foreign policy; that is, trying to find and encourage regimes that are stable but not grossly exploitative. It isn't easy...

Now as I understand it, Iraq is a more developed nation than Af., which had a small educated elite in the cities and highly "traditional" tribesmen everywhere else. Admirable in a terrifying sort of way, perhaps, but not the kind of people you want taking over a country.

Iraq perhaps has a larger population of educated middle-class people, but it's more heavily populated and has its own problems with feuding ethnic groups. Will they be able to form a modern nation _without_ a strongman at their head? Perhaps. But they may require a great deal of costly help and supervision. How long will the US be able to provide it? And if the US (and whatever allies will agree to pitch in) doesn't provide it, then who's to say that Saddam won't be replaced by somebody just like him? And if a new Saddam doesn't appear, then what's to prevent the country from collapsing into the kind of chaos that made Afghanistan a haven for Al Qua'eda?

Still I admire American courage and audacity in taking this on. Your optimism and conviction have won the day before.


alias clio | 02.07.03 - 6:44 pm | #

That's right. We didn't have a plan for Europe after WWII, either. Look how that turned out. It is better to arm the Indians and the Chinese and just let them duke it out.
Pat Buchanan | 02.07.03 - 6:45 pm | #

Mark,

Are you saying that the Pope considers "Muslim culure" to be superior to "Clinton/Bush culture" and that such a determination has influenced his determination that the US invasion of Iraq will not be just?

Bill | 02.07.03 - 6:46 pm | #

I'm saying nobody's immune from the fall, not even us, and the de-christianized West has its own evils which the virtues of the Muslim world are rightly repulsed by, just as the evils of the Muslim world repulse us. If we don't do something about our own evils, we will only create more radicalized Muslims. If we do something about ours, we will be in a much better position to deal with theirs.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 6:51 pm | #

"Does Bush's silence about an exit plan from Iraq after what war advocates insist will be an easy victory lead you to suspect that a rather lengthy occupation is planned? Do you think that this might be a war of conquest after all or will this be merely a "preemptive" occupation?"

Length of U.S. military presence in Germany & Japan: 57 years and counting

Length of U.S. military presence in South Korea: 50 years and counting

Not exactly rapid exit strategies there, and I doubt FDR or Truman intended them to be. Were these wars of conquest?


A.V. | 02.07.03 - 6:54 pm | #

Mark:

Of course, I totally agree, what everyone needs is The Body of Christ. But I think there is a chance of radical Islam taking hold of the middle east, and more democracy and free flow of information brings a greater chance of The Body of Christ beginning to influence Iraq and other middle eastern countries.

That's not to say we should go conquer them all, but with the tie to Bin Laden (another debate I realize) I think that for all practical purposes the U.S. needs to make it very clear that we will not allow any country to support terrorists who will kill thousands of Americans given the chance not to mention citizens of any other country. And, with the help of SH's WMD, the terrorists have more of a chance of accomplishing that.

Yes the U.S. too will pass but at least we can do something about leaving behind a more free and safe open society that will have the ability to choose hedonism or Christianity.

I checked on the France figure I totally remembered that wrong. Islam is the fastest growing religion there however. Sorry about the gaff. That's what happens when you listen to talk radio while working and commuting home. No complete concentration.
Kathleen | 02.07.03 - 6:56 pm | #

Mark,

But is it your take that the Pope has made some comparative determination about the evils in Clinton/Bush culture as opposed to the evils in Muslim culture, taking into account the corresponding virtues of each culture as well, and, as a result, has concluded that it would not be better for Clinton/Bush culture to prevail in the Middle East? Has the Pope concluded that burqas are better than thongs?
Bill | 02.07.03 - 7:03 pm | #

I am scared with the prospect of the war in Iraq, but--if it happens--I believe Saddam will fall quickly and the Iraqi people will be jubilant.

In fact, I believe the peaceniks who are traveling to Iraq to act as "Human Shields" will be in for a big surprise if Iraq is liberated. The very Iraqi people they believe they are protecting will turn against them for siding with Saddam.

The irony will be that the so called "Human Shields" will end up crying for U.S. troops to save their behinds.

Peace.
Dan | 02.07.03 - 7:03 pm | #

I think the Pope would prefer the virtues of the West arrive in the Mideast by some way other than force of arms. I doubt he'll get his wish and I'm not sure he should, on the whole. I think war with Iraq is a necessary evil. But I'm still very conflicted. I doubt that will change.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 7:14 pm | #

Dan,

I know that is a common conservative view of things, but I'm afraid it doesn't reflect the likely reality of a post-Saddam Iraq. Truth is the Kurds are not all our friends -- a bit of a "enemy of our enemy is our friend" thing there -- and there are clear factions within the Kurds, some with clear ties to al Qaida. Iran and Turkey both have serious interests in Iraq and would make a power play over certain areas. And the hybrid intelligence/military establishment isn't all going to be exiled, so don't think that it's going to be that easy to end Saddam's influence or find a regime we like take his place.
JACK | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 7:25 pm | #

AV,

In WW2, the US was attacked and then we had war declared on us by Germany. Korea was fought to repulse a communist invasion and to protect against the presumed effects of the domino theory. But what's happening in Iraq? This war will not be analogous to WW2 or Korea, but perhaps to the Spanish American War, where Spain was linked to the explosion on the Maine the way Iraq has been (sought to be and is in the minds of many) linked to 9/11. I don't think it likely that the US is planning for a democratic Iraq any time soon. The alternative would seem to be an extended MacArthur-tpe regency or installing a despot friendly to the US. What is that if not an empire? If it's not an empire, why bother?

Bill | 02.07.03 - 7:28 pm | #

Mark,

I'm sure that the Pope would also prefer to see the virtues of Islam arrive in the West, but the bad comes along with the good. Has the Pope concluded that the good/bad of Islam is preferrable to the good/bad of the West, at least as far as the Islamic Middle East is concerned?

Bill | 02.07.03 - 7:33 pm | #

Kathleen had a point: I believe what she heard was that 70% of all immigrants to France are Muslim. Islam intends to conquer Europe in a way that Jan Sobieski couldn't have imagined, by settlement and large families.

Mark, this war has nothing about Western virtue and everything about Western finance. The arabic regimes seem to understand more about how our Western fiat-currency works than the average Amercian, and are determined to use this against us as well as to sabotage our society and morale.

It appears that these muslims take the afterlife more seriously than do we Christians.

The Pope is talking about a real virtue that respects the all people and does not view workers as "human capital" and children as "pre-consumers" who are indoctrinated by the boob tube from the day of birth.
CS | 02.07.03 - 7:36 pm | #

Bill:

A) Why are you asking me?

B) What is the point of your question?

Mark
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 7:51 pm | #

Mark

Isn't it obvious? He has a big haymaker in store for you if he can just get you to answer his questions the way he wants you to.

But you already know that...
John K | 02.07.03 - 8:55 pm | #

I'm not convinced that a US ouster of the Hussein regime would turn public opinion against us; it might even engender a certain respect.

By the time this is over, some countries may be hoping to get invaded by the US.
(cf. The Mouse That Roared)

RC | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 10:38 pm | #

Ye gods! (Forgive the expression.)

Just checked out Salon and saw a picture of Oliver Stone which made him look _exactly_ like Saddam Hussein.

Has anyone ever seen them together?
alias clio | 02.08.03 - 12:16 am | #

Mark,

I'm asking you because I'm interested in what you think. I'm not trying to lure you into some kind of trap. Quite frankly, I'm just trying to figure out what your position on the war is, because from the different things you have said, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Correct me if I've misunderstood what you've said, but a few months ago you were praising George Weigel for presenting a convincing case that a US invasion of Iraq would be just. At one point I recall you sounding like a paranoid Rod Dreher saying something to the effect that the US would be defending itself by invading Iraq, because it is possible that Iraq could send a WMD to a US port in a shipping container and however improbable this may be, it's better to be safe than sorry. Then before the SOTU speech you were agreeing with Peggy Noonan that Bush hadn't really "made his case" yet for this war and that "facts" were needed. After the SOTU, you sounded like one of the NRO gang proclaiming that Bush had dispelled any doubt (despite the absense of Noonan's "facts"). Then it was that Powell had made the case at the UN and the French and Russians were just being obstructionists. Throughout it was that the Pope has to be for peace, because, well, that's his job. Now, it seems to be that there may be more to the Pope's position, in that he sees a US victory in the Middle East as a result worse than continuing the status quo. When asked for a clarification of all this, you turn cagey and ask why I'd be interested. I don't know if you pay attention to the names attached to the comments on your blog, but if you have, you may have noticed that I've commented a lot on the Iraq invasion over the past few months and I hope I've made my position on it clear (I'm against it). I don't know why you seem to be getting defensive all of a sudden. Your the one that set up the blog after all (for which I'm grateful).

Bill | 02.08.03 - 1:55 am | #

Clio,

Columnist Joseph Sobran has commented on how much Saddam resembles the actor Walter Matthau. It really is uncanny. However, don't expect to see that pointed out in the big-time US press: It would make Saddam appear too loveable and raise qualms about preempting him. Obviously, that says a lot more about the Americans and the press than it does about Saddam.


Bill | 02.08.03 - 2:15 am | #

Well, I'll admit it - I'm for the War in Iraq. You might even go so far as to characterize me as a "hawk." I feel terrible for the Iraqi people and I think they deserve liberation. Whether they get an "electoral democracy" in 5 or 10 years is a lesser problem for me than the possibility of a terrorist attack by Hussein on New York City. The amount of weapons of mass destruction he has ALREADY is terrifying.

Thank God North Korea and Iraq are not allies...

Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 3:23 am | #

FYI:

The soldiers Abbas left behind, meanwhile, sit in their hilltop bunkers, pondering an unenviable fate. "We are all very tired," Abbas said. "I haven't heard of Tony Blair. But if George Bush wants to give us freedom then we will welcome it."

More here.

John Farrell | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 9:23 am | #

Peace, all.

No danger from Muslims taking over the West by population. Whites will just retreat into gated communities and throw their old money around at chauffeurs, cooks, lobbyists, and tax consultants. Of course, if everything gets bombed back to the Bronze Age, then numbers might matter. If you really want to forestall a Muslim takeover, just give every Muslim woman a college education. Do it with a smile. Trust me on this; it will work.
Todd | 02.08.03 - 9:53 am | #

Todd -

You are correct. The population explosion was fixed in Malaysia by educating women.

We see this in the US in an overboard fashion..in fact, many of our women hate children (1-child, pro abort, day care dumpers).
Jabberwocky | 02.08.03 - 10:21 am | #

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this -- long posts to read all of them -

but if we liberate Iraq, perhaps there would be more religious freedom, and, given a choice, I think many would choose Christ over Islam.

Vitually every Muslim / Middle Eastern country either puts down Christianity through laws or intimidation. Perhaps the overthrow of Iraq could let the Christ to take root.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking.
John Logan | 02.08.03 - 11:29 am | #

Peace, J-wocky.

I this your overboard comment is a bit extreme. Men share in the raising of children. And part of the 2-income middle class phenomenon has more to do economic reality than "liberation," as it were. Better if each parent was working 202-5 hours per week, but you'll never see Big Bidness and our Consumer Culture agree to silliness like that.
Todd | 02.08.03 - 11:29 am | #

John,

I think that's wishful thinking. Iraq already is one of the more secular nations in the region compared to its neighbors.

Frankly, I'm surprised how many people are willing to be overly optimistic about the outcome of war. War involves death. We should do a bit more than just "hope for the best" about what our exit will look like. I mean, I know people are scared about the risks of an attack -- although, I judge them, based on current evidence, not imminent or likely --, but I have to wonder about a certain degree of arrogance in shifting all the risk to the people of the region. We're free to defend ourselves against a speculative risk, but we don't expend much effort thinking about the consequences for the region that will result from our actions. I'm not suggesting action might not be required or just, but let's be a bit more deliberate rather than willing to go to war because we are afraid of terrorism. (News flash -- we will never eliminate the threat of terrorism.)
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 11:45 am | #

Bill:

As I've repeatedly said, I am conflicted about the war, but feel it is probably necessary. I think there are strong arguments to be made both for and against it. I present, on this blog, both sides because I feel the force of both sides and frankly find the most difficult part of the debate to be those people who simply cannot imagine the other side has any merit to their case at all. But my own position is (tentatively) in favor of war.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 11:56 am | #

Jack,

Points noted. But don't be so pessimistic that you overlook the huge upside for millions of people oppressed in Iraq.

Victor Davis Hanson has an article at National Review Online that you may want to read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ ha...anson020703.asp






John Logan | 02.08.03 - 12:00 pm | #

This might be stating the obvious, but it's not at all clear that it is broadly understood, based on the above comments.

It is not the U.S. government's job to bring Christ to the Middle East, and I would tremble were it to see its job as such. Mr. Logan touched on this: the U.S. government's job is to open the Middle East up (sort of like an even more abstract Iron Curtain) so that everything can flow in — freedom, other religions, information, education, and (yes) business. The moral slippage of the West is not the fault of President Bush, neither (though I like to pretend that it is so) is EX-president Clinton culpable. The latter did harm on this count, no doubt, but he was more of a symptom that furthered the disease.

I may be off here because I get the sense that I missed some statement from the Pope (is there a link missing?). However, if our faith fails to find purchase in liberated nations, that is our fault, not the President's. It is similarly not the duty of "Bidness" (Which is whom? I work; is it me?) to seek ways to further our moral principles. To each part of life, its duties; to each vocation its accomplishments.

Frankly, if the question at hand is winning the hearts of people once they're liberated from tyranny, pictures of Cardinals raising hands with terrorist leaders and dubious moral claims meant to restrain the nation that the people will see as the liberator do more harm than good... I'd say.

How many Cardinals have walked the streets of Afghanistan?
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 12:04 pm | #

John,

That article misses the point entirely. No one doubts the efficiency of our military. It is quite reasonable to predict that Iraqi to U.S. casualties likely will be 100 to 1. But that article acts as if winning a 100 hours war (which is what the Bush administration has as its target) is ultimate victory. It's not. The Gulf War is proof enough of that.

Plus, the article ignores that Iraq is very different than Afghanistan. You have issues with the Kurds -- who aren't all people we would want to see in power -- wanting to be self-ruling. You have Turkish and Iranian interests and everyone desire for the oil fields. I think it's silly to assume that a defeated Iraqi regime isn't going to involve some power grabs by its neighbors.

Set aside the just war imminence question. Here's what I would like to see pro-war folks do.

1) Define your goals. Is the reason for war the liberation of the Iraqi people? Defense of the U.S.? Regime change? Destruction of WMDs? Let's stop the kitchen-sink approach to the argument. They all may be factors, but they deserve different weight, and I don't think it's true that just throwing all of them into the mix adds up to justification.

2) Define your war plan. I'm not asking specifics, but generally what do you foresee. And how does it accomplish your goals. If you want to destroy WMDs, how is your plan geared towards them.

3) Define your exit strategy. For example, if you want regime change how do you intend to leave Iraq with a stable government? Are you going to exile/prosecute all of Saddam's people and his intelligence/military apparatus? Or are you planning on a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq?

My point is, if you are proposing war, it is your responsibility to be addressing all three of these points. If you are not, you are just in this as an emotion game and that is incredibly disturbing to me.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 12:27 pm | #

Clio,

Come to think of it, it may have been columnist Charley Reese who noted Saddam's resemblance to Walter Mattau. It was either Reese or Joe Sobran, but I'm not sure which.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 12:42 pm | #

Jack,

Give the other side some credit. nobody with a brain wants war. This is just a message board to point out some thoughts - not a geopolitical think tank. We elected Bush to make hard decisions, and until he proves it otherwise, I'm going to trust him.
I also trust they're weighing the odds carefully and learning lessons from the "ragged ending" of the first gulf war.

But I would be overjoyed if Saddam left and took exile.

By the way, what's wrong with all of those "kitchen sink" arguments in forming a conclusion?

As to your other point - we've already proved to the region (from the first gulf war) that the U.S. is not going to allow any despotic regime to make a further grab on the region's oil. With all due respect, I think that argument is silly.

And lastly, the article does not miss the point. If we can liberate Iraq and accomplish all of the other "kitchen sink" goals with relative ease, it makes sense to me that we should. Like Afganistan, post-war Iraq make not be completely stable, (heck, in 10 years it may break down into civil war) but I think right now, overtrowing Saddam is a good idea.

Respectfully,
John Logan | 02.08.03 - 1:01 pm | #

JACK,

What you ask is an impossibility for the average pro-war citizen. We can't all be military and diplomatic experts.

The only questions on which most citizens can comment are personal morality and bigger picture issues, and the only specific question that you ask that speaks to that is number 1.

Regarding that question, it is not a matter of throwing all sorts of reasons together and saying that it justifies war; they are all of a piece. To defend the United States, we must destroy Hussein's WMDs and all conduits for resources to terrorists. To do that, we must change the regime, and all of it combines to do the right thing for the Iraqi people, as well. Of course, different advocates for war will prioritize things differently.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:04 pm | #

Columnist Joseph Sobran has commented on how much Saddam resembles the actor Walter Matthau. It really is uncanny. However, don't expect to see that pointed out in the big-time US press: It would make Saddam appear too loveable and raise qualms about preempting him. Obviously, that says a lot more about the Americans and the press than it does about Saddam.

Or maybe they have too much respect for Walter Matthau to do that? Nah, they must be out to get Sadamm.


Joshua Jericho | 02.08.03 - 1:11 pm | #

Mark,

From a Catholic perspective, it seems clear that the general question about whether or not a war should be waged is a prudential question and that people of good will may differ as to particular applications. However, there should be a common frame of reference. We all should be looking at and addressing the same data. This was why I was so puzzled by your apparent agreement with George Weigel around November and then your acknowledgement earlier this month that you and that other blogger you cited were of the opinion that Bush hadn't really made his case. You made no attempt to explain the apparent paradox of supporting both notions. How can you say a war is just, if you lack the facts on which to basse your prudential decision? Now, you've raised the interesting notion that even if Donald Rumsfeld's desires were realized fully according to his optimistic projections, the Pope may believe that this outcome would be regrettable and not to be preferred to the status quo in the Middle East today. Again, this would be a prudential judgment by the Pope with which Catholics may disagree, but wouldn't it alter significantly the terms of debate? It is clear that the current strategic plan of the US is to refashion the entire Middle East, not just Iraq. In light of the apparent objection of the Pope, wouldn't Catholic hawks have to address the issue in some way? Why is this crusade to "open" the Middle East to "freedom", as Justin describes, a good thing, especially when it is conceded that Christ is to have no part in this prying open of the region? Is this "freedom" anything more than the initiation of a basically healthy society (albeit one without Christ) into the Culture of Death, with its day care and two children families (if that)?

Bill | 02.08.03 - 1:13 pm | #

John,

The problem is that kitchen-sink arguments only focus on the fact that there is a problem. The questions as to whether we can do anything about the problem and whether, in the long-run, things will be better are not being addressed. I'm not asking for a think-tank policy paper. I'm asking for people to demonstrate that they are beyond being moved by just "bad man" theories and background fears.

Your response on my first point is silly. If Turkey, Iraq, Syria and others make moves to claim the Iraqi oil (through secret trade like Syria is doing now or annexation) are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. is going to fight another battle to stop that? Come on.

I understand the desire to trust the president. And that's fine. But trust of the president isn't an excuse for, when offering up your own rationale for why we should go to war, not addressing these more long term questions. They are difficult questions and I'm not suggesting that we can perfectly predict the answers to them. But ignoring them isn't the answer. (And that's my problem with the article you cited. This crisis is "easy" only if you look at the short-term.)
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:14 pm | #

What you ask is an impossibility for the average pro-war citizen. We can't all be military and diplomatic experts.

The only questions on which most citizens can comment are personal morality and bigger picture issues, and the only specific question that you ask that speaks to that is number 1.

John, that's b.s. and you know it. These questions can be addressed on general levels and specific ones. I'm not suggesting the average citizen think about them in the same way as the Joint Chiefs. But to ignore them is to be free of the consequences of one's decision to support war. That's pathetic.

JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:17 pm | #

Of course, I meant Justin, not John, in that last post.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:19 pm | #

Joshua,

After 9/11, when Osama bin Laden's visage first began appearing regularly in the newspapers, there were numerous comments about how he looked to be the personification of evil, looked like Satan himself. Maybe it was just the contrarian in me, but I couldn't help but note how much he resembled a figure painted by El Greco. He looked like a St. Jerome or some Spanish cardinal. To me, the resemblance was striking, but it obviously did not fit with popular demonology. In the US, we can admit nothing good or positive about our enemies, not even in terms of physical appearance. My theory is that this is apart of the messianic delusions that have been a component of the American psyche from the time of our founding. We are all good and are enemies are all evil. Crusades are not launched against St. Jerome or Walter Matthau. (Kim Jong Il, however, had better be careful.)


Bill | 02.08.03 - 1:33 pm | #

Bill,

...specially when it is conceded that Christ is to have no part in this prying open of the region...

Christ has as much a part of the prying as we people of Christ pursue. It is not the U.S. government's job to hand out Catechisms with the food aid, just as it is not appropriate, nor desirable, for the government to tell us what it is in the Bible that we should follow.

Once again, should the Iraqi people welcome the American liberation, as I suspect that they will, your position is hardly going to be one that they'll appreciate. In fact, I imagine that not a few of them would be inclined to tears of frustration at your suggestion that it is a basically healthy society. In what way can it be characterized as that?
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:48 pm | #

Jack,

We all have our reasons pro or against this war, but calling every single pro-war position silly or pathetic doesn't really help your position.

Just because you believe your own thoughts are more "nuanced" and you consider yourself thinking on the same level as the joint chiefs doesn't sway me.

Like I said before, given what has been presented to me, I believe this war is just and I trust the leadership to make reasoned judgements until they show me otherwise.

Concerning my other silly point:

Jack, we already fought a war to prevent other countries from making a power grab on the Mid-East oil - it's too important to the economy to let that region fall into choas. We are in essance proving it again by removing Saddam. I don't think it's silly to believe we would let the Iranians, or Turkey (a NATO member and the only democracy in the region), or Syria, who is already on thin ice with us, to grab (or take de facto control) the oil fields.
John Logan | 02.08.03 - 1:55 pm | #

JACK,

Pathetic BS, eh? Well, then, I guess it's hardly worth my time to converse. But for my own sake, I'll pursue it a little further.

How can the average person comment on war plans? I know nothing of military hardware. My moral position: keep the casualties to a minimum. Put as few troops in harms way as possible, destroy as little as possible. Destroy as much of the WMD infrastructure as possible. Once the regime is ousted, seek out and destroy all secret weapons. Is that really helpful to the conversation?

As for the exit strategy: be as light handed as possible and still set the country on course. I suspect that will, in fact, involve a somewhat lengthy "occupation" of some measure, though not likely as much as there would be if it were a hostile citizenry. I suspect it will involve exiling or prosecuting the top Iraqi leaders, but there may be many who are simply attempting to stay alive under Saddam at this moment. In other words, we don't have enough information to say more than "avoid being too heavy handed, but avoid letting the peace slip away."

Good day.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 1:56 pm | #

Justin,

You acknowledge (and I don't think that it is a controversial point) that the "freedom" the US would bring to the region would not be the freedom of Christ. Well, what then does this freedom consist of? Is this the freedom to contracept, the freedom to watch pornography and product advertising, the freedom to divorce, the freedom to engage in unmarried or homosexual sex, the freedom to vote in a plebescite about the desirability of any alliance with the US or Israel, the freedom to vote for their rulers, the freedom to educate their children in the manner they see fit, etc., etc. The list could be added to ad infinitum, with qualitatively good things, qualitatively bad ones and some which may not be clear as to whether they might be good or bad. The point is that merely appealing to "freedom" is not as disinterested as it may sound to you and is certainly not automatically good. I have taken Mark to have intimated (although he may resist the point, I don't know) that the Pope may consider Western "freedom" to be inferior to the current status quo in the Middle East. You seem dismayed as to how anyone could even consider such a thing. Yet, the society you want to liberate exhibits that essential feature of health -- it can reproduce itself. On the other hand, your would be liberators have rendered themselves barren. This is true all over the West, whether in the US, Europe or a Westernized Japan. From a Catholic perspective, it seems that it should be your burden to show that this transformation you would work in the Middle East would be for the best, when you acknowledge that it is not the job of the US to be concerned about Christ per se, but freedom generally and when the Pope himself would be of a different opinion as to the relative merits of your vision.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 2:40 pm | #

Justin,

Regarding your response to Jack above, what exactly do you anticipate the US will be attempting to achieve during the "somewhat lengthy occupation" you foresee?

Bill | 02.08.03 - 2:42 pm | #

You acknowledge (and I don't think that it is a controversial point) that the "freedom" the US would bring to the region would not be the freedom of Christ. Well, what then does this freedom consist of?

The freedom not to be gassed to death for jay walking. The freedom not to have to watch your children tortured because you were seen walking too close to a military compound. The freedom not to have to vote for Sadam Hussein in a "free referendum" for fear that you and your family will be, after a long and agonizing session beneath the royal palace, erased.

Good freedoms all.
Anonymous | 02.08.03 - 3:03 pm | #

John and Justin,

Woah. Both of you ought to read my comments again. I didn't say an pro-war position is pathetic. I said suggesting that the average citizen doesn't need to think about the actual war plan and exit strategy in deciding whether he supports going to war is pathetic. Justin, you certainly, have laid out some clear principles for those two points. I agree, as citizens, we won't have all the answers. But we should be given some indication of what they are. As for the war plan side of it, I don't expect details of the actual operations, but I do expect for goals to be defined so we know when we have achieved the mission. As for the exit strategy, if regime change is planned, I would expect more serious efforts now to indicate or hint at who we would expect to replace Saddam or the process that would be used to develop the new government. Again, not a treatise of every detail, but something more than "we will work that out".

For what it is worth, I have posted a lengthy exposition of my own thoughts on the war at my blog. Maybe it will help clear up my perspective and the rational for asking pro-war types to put some more meat on their arguments.


JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 3:05 pm | #

Anon.,

Gassed to death for jaywalking? Are you sure it's Saddam and not Rudy Guiliani you have in mind?

Bill | 02.08.03 - 4:08 pm | #

All the J's,

Contra Jack, I don't see that Justin has laid out clear principles regarding an exit strategy. I suppose this is another way of saying, Justin, that you haven't clearly articulated the vision of freedom you hope to instill in the recipients of our beneficence.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 4:20 pm | #

Walter Matthau may have looked like Saddam because of the jowls.

Stone in the Salon photo looks like Saddam because of the moustache.

The picture is one of Stone and Castro talking together; so deeply was I fooled, for a second, that I thought "Oh no, are those two so close now?" on the assumption that it was Saddam.

I wouldn't put it past Stone to be deliberately cultivating a Saddam-style moustache.

Dictators and directors have much in common.


alias clio | 02.08.03 - 4:24 pm | #

Clio,

Both are auteurs I suppose.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 4:32 pm | #

Gassed to death for jaywalking? Are you sure it's Saddam and not Rudy Guiliani you have in mind?

That's a half-cute evasion. I've noticed that people opposed to the war, who fail to see that there is a case for war, whose real merits have to be debated, generally avoid talking about the real Iraqis who have suffered under Sadamm's regime.

Sure, there are other genocides elsewhere, and we don't run in with our fire extinguishers every time people start killing each other en masse, but the deliberate evasion of discussion of real atrocities is so typical of liberal opposition to the war. I am holding back the mean and nasty commentary this engenders in my heart.
Joshua Jericho | 02.08.03 - 4:43 pm | #

Joshua,

Clarify: just liberal opposition to war or all opposition to war is liberal? Because a lot of people blur the two, and I have to say there are still a lot of conservatives, like me, who aren't persuaded yet that war is the answer.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 5:01 pm | #

Joshua,

As an initial matter, I challenge you to make some kind of case -- any case -- that the human rights situation in Iraq plays any role whatsoever in the decision of the US to invade that country. I posit to you that any talk of human rights by Bush, Powell or some other administration proponent of invasion is purely pretextual and an effort to build support for a policy many people of good will would not support otherwise.

Since you appear to be a fan of reality, let me ask you what if any threat you think Saddam really poses to the US and whether or not you believe he had anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda.

By way of observation, I will note that you seem to have a sensitive heart indeed to be so obviously moved by the right to vote and the right to jaywalk. However, I will suggest to you that there may be more at stake in conceptions of freedom. At least this appears to be the opinion of the Pope.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 5:02 pm | #

If the Muslim world is so much virtuous than the West--in what precisely? breeding rate?--it's a pity the prelates that think so don't try living in hardline Muslim states and see how they like being dhimmis. Their successors won't have the opportunity of chosing but they are going to find out.
Islam has no restrictions on homosexuality--pederasty is a fine old tradition in Afghanistan--does have a history of indulging in pornography, uses contraception, abortion, and divorce at the whim of the husband and some of its societies practice female genital mutilation. It also has been and is in bloody conflict with Christians wherever they interface in sufficient numbers. So someone tell me, wherein does its moral superiority reside? The subjugation of women is good?? The veil is so Marylike?
Sandra Miesel | 02.08.03 - 5:27 pm | #

Bill,

Get over yourself.

People have reasoned opinions that just might differ from yours.

Instead of continually challenging their conclusions with not-so-veiled insulting responses, you could give us the reasons why you think we shouldn't go to war (in a million words or less)

P.S. You'll have to use small words because I'm a conservative.


Anonymous | 02.08.03 - 5:57 pm | #

Sandra,

I don't know how precisely you would define "subjugation of women", but it probably includes things I would say are morally superior to their obverse. On the whole, I don't think women's lib has served the West very well in general or women for that matter in particular. You may be unconcerned that the West has lost the ability to "breed", but I think it is prima facie evidence that there is something profoundly wrong in the West. You may resent "patriarchy", but contraception, abortion and divorce do not seem to be as much of a problem in the middle East as they are in the West. They are able to reproduce themselves and don't seem to have a 50% divorce rate (regardless of "the whims the husband"). I don't think allowing women to wear trousers has been worth the price.

You point out that Muslim states aren't very interested in having themselves being made over as Catholic states. Isn't that just another way of saying that they believe Islam is true? I would think (and maybe the Pope agrees) that it is easier to convert people with a false idea of the truth to the real truth of the Church than it is to convert many in the West, who deny that there is any truth at all and that everything is relative.

As for homosexuality, I don't think you can chalk up prevalent vice in Afghanistan to Islam. Indeed, as the following link shows, the Taliban were not exactly gay-friendly. The homosexuals in Afghanistan were among those we liberated last year, along with the drug dealers.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=c...&hl=en&ie=UTF- 8

Regarding pornography, I really don't know where to begin. Are you seriously maintaining that Muslim culture is as saturated with the stuff as Western culture is? Such a statement is obviously false. (See Christina Aguilera below)

Where is it you find female genital mutilation in the Middle East? Are you proposing an invasion of Africa next?

Why is it you seem to mock Marylike dress? Do you really consider low-rise jeans to be a great advance for Western civilization? Is Christina Aguilera really a "spokesperson" you would want to have considered in any way representative of any culture you are affiliated with?

Sandra, it does not at all seem idiotic to me to hold that the West may have a host of problems that one may not wish visited on the Middle East. Maybe that's what these prelates you disdain have considered.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 6:19 pm | #

Anon.,

If you have a "reasoned opinion," I'd be delighted to read it.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 6:24 pm | #

Anon.,

To respond to your request, I believe that we should not invade Iraq, because we lack a valid reason to invade. I hope that's clear.

Bill | 02.08.03 - 6:27 pm | #

Yeah Bill I do have reasoned opinions.

But I've determined from reading your responses to other people (with your healthy dose of "big-brained hubris") it isn't worth it.

No one is going to have a respectible opinion that contrasts your own.

So I will repeat: Get over yourself.


Anon | 02.08.03 - 6:30 pm | #

Anon,

Sorry for being right. But just think how disappointed I'll be when the invasion happens, despite my best efforts to convince people that it is an unjust, unnecessary war. I'll get my comeuppance then, that's for sure.

Enjoy the bombing on CNN! (Oops, I forgot. You're a conservative. Enjoy the bombing on Fox News!)


Bill | 02.08.03 - 6:51 pm | #

Sheesh Bill, really, take my advice above.

By the way, are you university professor?

Ah forget it. Typing's too tough when you're a conservative like me - I always have my finger up my nose (and am saying duhhhhhhh all the time).
Anon | 02.08.03 - 7:03 pm | #

Anon,

Nothing like picking a fight with an opponent you feel comfortable dismissing. As a fellow conservative, I'd love to hear your opinion for the war effort, because frankly I don't like knowing my country is headed down the path to a war that I'm unconvinced is justified -- albeit clearly one with some understandable rationales. If you don't want to post it on the thread, email me. But is it really worth posting your current banter with Bill?
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 7:16 pm | #

JACK,

"As a fellow conservative, I'd love to hear your opinion for the war effort, because frankly I don't like knowing my country is headed down the path to a war that I'm unconvinced is justified -- albeit clearly one with some understandable rationales."

Ok, I'll play ball for a while.

1> Goals: First, the primary goal is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a fanatical dictator who has the potential to ally with a country like North Kora and others, so as to hold the world hostage to their own whims. The lesson of the first Gulf War was: Don't Fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons. Hence, to be able to move independently of a world power like the US requires holding a trump card of Nuclear weapons or other WMD, and the threat of using them. Witness North Korea's blustering as a perfect example. The threat of that is too great for us to ignore, especially when such states can ally with terrorists as well.

Everything else is secondary - freedom of the Iraqi people, a democratic state as a hedge against Saudi Arabian Islamism, and protection of the international oil market. I'm not going to lie and say that a primary goal for the US is the humanitarian concerns of Iraq. It is not. Though worthy and noble, it's a secondary goal, if possible. I'm more interested in the balance of power - that the United States' world dominance not be held hostage by the likes of Hussein or North Korea.

2> War Plan: Massive, overwhelming non-proportional force to take out strategic centers of command, arms munitions and potential WMD, and communications. Precision bombing of those targets, and a move in from ground forces afterwards (21st century war envisions ground forces as secondary to air attacks, and thus they're unlikely to encounter massive force by the enemy, because if it were massive, our ground forces would withdraw and call in for an airstrike). Ground forces would occupy parts of the territory they cover, accepting the overwhelming surrender of the Iraqi army, while pacifying any resistors and the Republican Guard. Baghdad should not be occupied immediately, though it will be surrounded, to be taken when conditions are right. Concurrent with an attack, food and medical supplies airdropped onto conquered zones should stabalize the occupied regions until the entire country is secure.

3> Exit Strategy: Significant troop withdrawals only after all WMD are found and eliminated. However, as in all circumstances, a large presence will be left to manage the area, to watch the boarder of Iran, to guard the oil wells from attack, and to prevent any ethnic uprising of the Kurds and others in the region. Iraq can be goverened as an occupied zone for a year or two, or more, as a friendly country to the US, with significant freedoms over what they already have, while internal state building with native democrats in Iraq is accomplished. However, troops must remain in the country (like they're in South Korea) until the country is stable and not under threat from others in the region.


Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 7:44 pm | #

No, it is not worth it.

There's plenty of room for debate, but Bill could use a lesson in polite dialogue.

I'm through with this article. You and Bill simply are not going to change your minds - and that's fine with me.

Note: The pro-war crowd seemed to behave themselves - it's the two anti-war people who caused things to become less civil (judging from the posts).

I apologize if I've offended.


Anon | 02.08.03 - 8:02 pm | #

Anon,

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Bobbert, I appreciate your response. It's pretty much along the lines of what I expected and I can agree with much of it. Maybe this might help clear some things up for me. Take your definition of the goals. They would clearly suggest that North Korea and Iran and others are problematic and a danger to U.S. interests. I'm curious, do you think it would be justified to take military action against them after we finish with Iraq? If not, what's the distinguishing factor?
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 8:11 pm | #

Bill,

As an initial matter: The Pope has earned my respect as someone smarter and holier than I, so I respect his opinion and take it seriously. You have not impressed me in this way, so please don't be surprised if I'm not impressed by your smarty-pants answers to tough questions.

I just erased a long response to you because I realized a more appropriate response is, "Shut up, you condescending fop!"
Joshua Jericho | 02.08.03 - 8:21 pm | #

To JACK:

My thinking on the Iraq situation is somewhat similar to Bobbert's. OTOH, like Mark Shea, I'm quite conflicted.

My convictions are much more pro-invasion than contra, but I pray that a miracle will make invasion unnecessary. I think invasion or something drastic has to happen, however, as Sadamm Hussein, if he is not Hitler, is playing him in an overlong movie. Time is running out on that film and the end will be, one way or the other, dramatic. I'd rather the US win at the end of that film, and I daresay the Iraqi people will win if the US wins and lose if Sadamm wins. That is less true of the Arab world in general, but still true. Of course, the whole thing is scary as hell all the way around, which is why I get so flummoxed when people make the perfect the enemy of the good and talk as if we could just butt out of this thing and it would all go away.

It ain't gonna' happen. G.W.H.B. married us to this problem for better or for worse in '90-'91, and it looks like till death do us part.
Joshua Jericho | 02.08.03 - 8:31 pm | #

BTW, Anon., I'm a college professor and a university student. FWIW,
Joshua Jericho | 02.08.03 - 8:32 pm | #

Joshua,

I appreciate that a great bit. Like you I find this as scary as hell. I'm thankful that my brother who is in the Marines is not likely to be deployed over there, but that could change. (Not suggesting pro-war folks don't take the risk to our troops seriously; instead, just trying to suggest that my anti-war stance at the moment isn't just some hippy position or one made by a person who doesn't understand personal consequences.)

I've laid out in considerable detail my position on my blog. But to summarize: I don't see the imminence of Saddam's threat to us or the community of nations. The evidence presented so far gets me most of the way there but not over the bar yet. If new evidence is presented to the point, I'm sure I might find myself on the pro-war side. (Wouldn't reduce my anxiety about the whole thing, but I would be more comfortable in the sense that at least I would think our actions were moral.)

But, I'm willing to even go one further. I fully recognize that my prudential judgment of the evidence on imminence may be wrong. So, if the President clearly defines the goals of the war and presents the exit strategy in a way that shows me a high likelihood of success and that our action is not going to result in more harm (from our direct action and the unintended consequences that will flow from it) than what we are trying to prevent, I would be willing to defer to his prudential judgment that the threat is imminent both on the basis that I may be wrong and that he has more information.

What galls me though is that some people don't accept the legitimacy of these questions. To me there is a world of difference between a hypothetical and an actual imminent threat. I think Saddam is an actual threat. I'm not convinced yet that his an actual imminent threat.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 8:46 pm | #

JACK,

"I'm curious, do you think it would be justified to take military action against them [North Korea] after we finish with Iraq? If not, what's the distinguishing factor?"

The distinguishing factor is that NK already has WMD, so the United States is de facto already rendered impotant. NK can threaten to use its nuclear weapons and potentially has the missiles to launch an attack against Alaska, our troops in Japan, and maybe even LA and northern California. Not to mention that it has a million troops on the boarder of South Korea ready to invate at a moment's notice.

I have long considered how to deal with NK. I suspect they're blustering with rough words right now because their state is seriously failing. Massive starvation is rampant even in the cities, and I think that it might be affecting their army, which of course is the source of their only strength. They may slowly be watching their army starve, which means they'll soon have nothing left in several months. For them, it's almost as if they're trying to play a game of nuclear blackmail because the alternative is to have no state apparatus at all. If that is not successful, they can sell their nuclear weapons to the highest bidder and then use that money for food. So developing the weapons was a win-win situation for NK.

But for the US, it is terrifying. Moreover, NK's paranoia gives us limited options (especially since they view sanctions as a cause for war). What we can do is "talk" with them, in the hope their state crumbles. But NK is likely to sell its WMD to a 3rd party before they let their state crumble. So the US is left with a terrible choice: giving in to NK's blackmail so it won't sell WMD to terrorists, or not giving in to blackmail, and potentially forcing NK to sell WMD to terrorists. Either choice is unacceptable.

I'm hoping that the National Reconaissance Office is desperately searching for NK's weapons. If we know where they are, and the situation comes down to those 2 terrible choices, should we take out their WMDs, knowing that NK will invade South Korea as a result? That is a terrible price to pay, and would mean a Second Korean War. But if the choice is that, or living in a world when NK can threaten nuclear attack whenever it wants something, or a world where terrorists have a nuclear bomb, then defending South Korea in a conventional war might be the only option available to us.


Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 8:57 pm | #

Bobbert,

I appreciate your answer quite a bit. It seems clear that you see the possibility of a rogue nation obtaining nuclear weapons (1) as a factor in the question of imminence (based on their pursuit of them ) and (2) a factor in the question of whether an invasion is likely of success and won't create greater harm (on the theory that if they have the weapons, war is less likely of being viable, because they may use them). I certainly agree with the second.

I'm not sure on the first. I have to give it more thought. To me the left-hand side of the threat equation seems to be an A x B x C:

A = the possibility that Saddam could use WMD against us if he had them. For practical purposes, in this day and age, I think this is a 1 as missile and bomber delivery systems just aren't as important as they used to be. I think we would agree on this one.

B = the probability that Saddam would use WMD against us if he had them. This is probably where we have some disagreements about what the evidence suggests.

C = the damage WMD would inflict. I'm sure we agree here that this is high.

The right hand side of the equation is a threshold variable of how high this threat factor has to be to constitute imminence. Call it D.

It sounds like to me that not only might we disagree about B, but we probably disagree on D. I get the impression that, because we are talking about nuclear weapons (and A is a 1) you wouldn't require too high of a D.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 9:12 pm | #

JACK,

About your imminent threat approach. On your blog, you state: "the damage that will be inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain (this is the "imminence" requirement)..."

Grave: If we wait 6 months and let the inspectors prance around Iraq, giving Saddam time to develop a bomb, and he threatens to use it against US troops if we attack, the game is over and the US has lost. We would be forced to withdraw from the region, and the lesson would be to all dictators that the US will not risk its troops in the face of a realistic threat. In effect, the entire Pax Americana would come crashing down, and the global order as we know it would cease to exist. Dictatorial states could emerge where the US is prevented from attacking them because of nuclear deterrence against us, and in the meantime those states could train terrorists to destabilize regions of the world and to give them a "hands off" policy of attaining their goals covertly, even to the point of attacking the US and claiming plausible deniability. Imagine if the Taliban had a nuclear weapon, and that is the global order that would arise.

Lasting: I could see no end out of the fog of that new global order, unless there were some way to defend against nuclear weapons. Missile defense is one possibility, but that won't counter smuggled nuclear bombs and suitcase weapons. The world could enter another dark age for another 500 years, while international trade, democratic rights, and all that we know could cease to exist.

Certain: The example of North Korea gives evidence to how certain it is states with nuclear weapons would blackmail the US with their demands. It is only a fortuitous circumstance that North Korea and Iraq have not allied, trading nuclear bombs for oil, and that North Korea is not supporting terrorism against the US and the South Koreans. But those are distinct possibilities. Indeed, there is little the US can do against the threat of a nuclear-armed state sponsoring terrorism. Nuclear weapons are a trump card allowing a dictator to do whatever he wants.

"Assume Saddam has WMD. Is it really an option for him to use them?"

Yes, it is. If I were Saddam, and I wanted the US off my back, I would threaten to blow up all of Washington and NYC in a heartbeat, by sailing a cargo ship right up next door to both. Why do you think that the US is playing so carefully with NK right now? Unfortunately, the response I suspect from most politicians in this country to such a threat would be: let Saddam have what he wants. The rest of the world, especially most of Europe, is at that point. Appeasment seems to be the way to avoid all problems these days. I think that MANY people do not really see how fragile freedom is and how easy it is to give in to the demands of a dictator.

Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 9:24 pm | #

JACK,

A question about your multiplication analysis. Can you better explain "A"? I don't understand what you mean by giving it a value of 1? Do you mean that, right now since Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons at this point, I agree that this is an imagined threat, not an actual threat? I thought that was the distinction you were trying to make in your blog, but you don't seem to make it here, at least as I read it. I have difficulty distinguishing your A and B variables. Please elaborate.

Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 9:31 pm | #

I don't disagree with much of what you have said here Bobbert. But are you really certain that we aren't already at that point? The fact is that the nuclear technology is out of the bag and that there are plenty of unaccounted for weapons. And not everyone who has the technology is someone we can trust not to sell it or is a great ally. (Do you really trust Pakistan?) Add to the factor that when we have gone into countries and taken out their dictactors the old military/intelligence apparatus has turned to organized crime and proliferation of weapon technology. (Look at Serbia.) Are you really suggesting invasion every time we suspect a dictator is going to acquire the bomb? (Maybe not, maybe only in this case invasion seems appropriate.)
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 9:36 pm | #

By A I meant the technical capability to use the bomb against us versus the intent and political capability to use it against us.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 9:38 pm | #

Jack,

You asked above (along with Bill, but I wish to avoid him) about justification. My view, simply put, is:

Saddam was getting his butt kicked on the battlefield 12 years ago. In order to stop the butt-kicking, he pledged to do X,Y,Z - and his agents signed a cease-fire treaty.

He has not only defied the X,Y,Z commitments he pledged to do; he also has added other breaches (e.g. firing at patrol planes, illegal arms shipments).

He broke the cease-fire agreement. A state of war now exists under the terms.

In my view this war is clearly justified (from that point alone).

Respectfully.
John Logan | 02.08.03 - 9:54 pm | #

Irrespective of the multiplication analysis, I think I've found the source of our disagreement. You say:

"It sounds like to me that not only might we disagree about B, but we probably disagree on D. I get the impression that, because we are talking about nuclear weapons (and A is a 1) you wouldn't require too high of a D."

D is imminent threat, and you say I wouldn't require a "too high" one. Darn right. In fact, the basic rule of thumb should be: no rogue states should have nuclear weapons, ever.

Do you seriously want to live in a world where a rogue state has nuclear weapons, and various means to deliver them? That's ok with you? You're sure of that?

Let me tell you a story... I live in Manhattan and work for a very big corporate law firm. Last week we had our "state of the firm" address. The Managing Partner made a great speach, detailing the past and prospects for the future: that 2003 looked to be a good year, markets were recovering, the potential for high-end legal services looks bright for the future, etc. But something was left unspoken, and afterwards when my practice group went out to dinner it came out. And that unspoken phrase was: the future looks bright, assuming we all survive. That fear is on everyone's mind right now, because the danger has never been so great. And these are rational, logical corporate lawyers we're talking about, and all of them fear that we could be looking at our last days on earth.

There is not one rational person living in New York City who does not think about the potential for a nuclear bomb turning everything here into ashes. Personally, I put my chances of survival in the next 5 years at 50/50. The CIA and the FBI must have a 100% success rate to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in the middle of Times Square, 5 blocks south of me, and a 100% success rate just is impossible to attain.

So I'm not willing to live with the thought of a rogue nuclear state allying with terrorists. Because if I live with that thought, and the CIA and FBI and others live with that thought, it means I probably won't live at all.

Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 9:55 pm | #

Bobbert,

I can understand all of that. And I don't have the personal experience of 9/11 happening in my city to shape my thinking. You ask, "Do you seriously want to live in a world where a rogue state has nuclear weapons, and various means to deliver them? That's ok with you? You're sure of that? " (1) I'm not entirely convinced we don't already live in that world. (2) I'm not entirely convinced we can prevent that world from coming, if it isn't already here. (3) I'm not entirely convinced I want to live in a world where the superpower routinely is engaging in preemptive military strikes. That I live in the U.S. and we are that superpower now, and that I generally think our judgments and motives are good, gives me some comfort with this for now. But there's no guarantee that we will always be top dog. (4) I think the moral question has to trump fear. This world is ultimately a defeat. I'm not saying that the type of action you propose is clearly immoral. On the contrary, I'm looking for reasons to make the case for why it would be. As I've said, I would like to be on your side of the argument, I'm just not there yet.


"And these are rational, logical corporate lawyers we're talking about..." Well, being one myself ... Seriously, I understand where you are going with this. The fear is real and understandable. Not denying it one bit.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 10:02 pm | #

John,

A fair point. My only caution to that would be to ask whether the terms of peace were just. Nations don't lose all their rights just because they lost a war. I suspect, on the whole, the terms were fair. So I understand why some would accept that as a factor, although it seems unclear to me if it would be enough on its own.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 10:04 pm | #

JACK,

I'm reassured that you understand the danger. It is palpable. After 9-11, it took months for me to get used to the sound of airplanes flying overhead. I'm astonished that they still allow them to fly over the City. Anyway...

"1) I'm not entirely convinced we don't already live in that world. 2) I'm not entirely convinced we can prevent that world from coming, if it isn't already here."

It's probably here, but we haven't seen the ramifications of its presence. It is a chance of luck that North Korea hasn't solidified its ties with Iraq and other terrorist states. I'm worried that if we do nothing to Iraq, and let it win in the face of all our buildup, then our retreat will hasten to build ties between rogue states, seeing the defeat of the US and knowing that the chance of them winning is a realistic possibility. After all, it was our retreat from Somalia that emboldened terrorists to begin with. A retreat from Iraq will accomplish that tenfold, especially with rogue states.

And yet, I think to some extent we CAN turn back the clock, at least for as long as America exists. South Africa used to have nuclear weapons - they disarmed. Brazil had a nuclear program - they abandoned it. Now, disarming a state that doesn't want to disarm is obviously more difficult. But I have hope that the potential exists to disarm India and Pakistan eventually. And to those states that will not peacefully disarm, I hope that special ops or strategic airstrikes might be able to taking out their WMDs, pacifying them before they get a chance to respond, and hopefully preventing a conventional attack, knowing they'd lose against a nuclear-armed America.

"3) I'm not entirely convinced I want to live in a world where the superpower routinely is engaging in preemptive military strikes. That I live in the U.S. and we are that superpower now, and that I generally think our judgments and motives are good, gives me some comfort with this for now. But there's no guarantee that we will always be top dog."

I think that the danger of a lawless world held hostage to nuclear-armed rogue states is worse. I have no fears of a Pax Americana. Of course, should America crumble from within, then the world is truly in danger. Don't forget, even Rome kept the peace - but when it fell a Dark Age crept over Europe. The choice facing us is civilization or another dark age.

"(4) I think the moral question has to trump fear. This world is ultimately a defeat."

I know. I understand that America, like the Roman civilization, will end. But I had always thought it would be 1000 years from now. I never considered it happening in my lifetime. But that is a very real possibility, and if it happens I still would maintain my Catholicism and endure, if I survived. But for the life of me, I cannot envision how it could be moral to allow the entire world to plunge into a situation where it's held hostage, potentially for centuries, to the inclinations of meglomanical dictators and their fanatical legions. If that's what morality is, then perhaps it's a dark age already.

Bobbert | 02.08.03 - 10:46 pm | #

I know. I understand that America, like the Roman civilization, will end. But I had always thought it would be 1000 years from now. I never considered it happening in my lifetime. But that is a very real possibility, and if it happens I still would maintain my Catholicism and endure, if I survived. But for the life of me, I cannot envision how it could be moral to allow the entire world to plunge into a situation where it's held hostage, potentially for centuries, to the inclinations of meglomanical dictators and their fanatical legions. If that's what morality is, then perhaps it's a dark age already.

I hear you completely. I was sitting in a presentation of the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation right after the India and Pakistan nuclear tests in '98 when it hit me just how quickly we could see an end or dramatic change to the American era.
JACK | Homepage | 02.08.03 - 11:15 pm | #

It is vital for American Catholics to remember that this country is as temporary as the Roman Empire. Only the Body of Christ will still be here on the Last Day.

True, but you still don't have any grasp of what's going on.
Otto Wartsstraw | 02.08.03 - 11:16 pm | #

Admonition from George Orwell:

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Otto Wartsstraw | 02.08.03 - 11:52 pm | #

It's more likely that the 70% statistic in France refers to the proportion of France that is French.
John L. Sillasen | 02.09.03 - 12:05 am | #

Look, the United States is a great empire in the process of becoming. Why do we want to trim the sails of destiny? If we have an empire, why do so many voices want to treat it as if it were the plaything of democracy? Not that Pres Bush will become the next Charlemagne, but if this nation plays its cards right, perhaps this unsurpassed honor will fall upon the shoulders of Hilary sometime in the next decade.
John L. Sillasen | 02.09.03 - 12:08 am | #

JACK,

Presuming that the U.S. crumbles or another nation surpasses us as a superpower, will our having acted to ensure as U.S.-friendly a world as possible really affect how the new kingdom comports itself? History suggests that the United States is entirely unique in this respect, and there's no reason to believe that despotic rulers of the past acted as they did only because they didn't have the example of the United States to follow.

It is false to suggest that a nuclear rogue is an utter loss for the United States. It just raises the stakes, and we are in a much weaker position of leverage (even if only to bluff) if we prove ourselves unwilling to follow through with the force that was implicit in the agreements that Hussein has systematically broken and to go up against a much weakened regime with (hopefully) only biological and chemical weapons.

Furthermore, with the viability of the United States so absolutely crucial to relative stability in the world for the foreseeable future, it is insanely dangerous to diminish its leverage in the way in which those who oppose war now cannot help but do.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 12:20 am | #

So, the United States decides to back off in this here scenario.

Pres 4 life SH continues to build wmd. Potential allies of Iraq notice this and interpret it as evidence that the spiritual dimension of reality has sobered up the west.

SH gains allies, who of course believe in Islam. Since Islam believes that eventually it shall rule the world, enslaving all who do not convert, then the morale grows among the Islamic nations. They sense that the Church is finally losing its power due to the immorality of its children, the western nations.

Yes, you guessed it. At this point, the likes of Hitler, Hirohito, Musselini, Stalin, and Mao in our recent century will have arisen once again to confound the notions of peace and justice and human dignity held dear by the west.

But at this point, totalitarian tyranny will not amount to a puny Iraq. The now puny leader of Iraq will have become the strongman of all that lusts against the tradition of the west and the Church.

This is where the bloodbath may take place.

So what if oil is part of the situation? If you don't want oil, then get honest and get rid of your car, and everything that contains plastic which means most clothing, virtually all appliances, medical and dental equipment, and for all you enviro enthusiasts this means your water bottles. About the only thing left after you get rid of plastic will be beer in bottles. If the entire world agrees to junk plastic, then maybe this will become the ticket to peace ... beer in bottles. Except in Texas, of course, where even beer is powerless change the culture. There, for example, culture has overpowered beer and enslaved it.
John L. Sillasen | 02.09.03 - 12:26 am | #

Justin,

I don't follow. The issue isn't whether our example would have changed the behavior of past despots. The question is whether we wish to establish an example that can be exploited by other nations in the future. And in fairness, this wasn't the thrust of my argument but an added pragmatic concern. I don't suggest that if we take action against Iraq, every nation now will do the same against countries they fear, nor that if we don't take action, there will never be another act of aggression by countries.

As for your second point, which is it? Is the nuclear rogue problem the driving force for you like Bobbert or is it not?

As for your last point, I think you overstate it. Or at least I don't see how it applies to my concerns about the war prospect as of today.

As for Sillason, well, I think I will just wait for Bobbert's return. (Although I think we've taken our conversation as far as possible at the moment.) At least there I was confident that both sides understood the other.
JACK | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 1:03 am | #

Well, I'll only re-state that the moral issue for me is that allowing rogue states to go nuclear, and appeasing and buying off the blackmail of those rogue states, is a grave evil, because when that happens it holds the world hostage to those dictators. I think it's more evil than the possibility of a preemptive attack on such states being an "unjust war."

Furthermore, I must add, George W. Bush is not Catholic, yet several ministers of his Protestant church have commented that as a Methodist, he is potentially violating his faith by going to war with Iraq. I don't know what they're talking about, though it may be that Methodists have a stronger "just war" requirement. Anyway, my point is, shouldn't the leader of America, Catholic or no, analyize the situation from a geopolitical and strategic view, instead of agonizing over the proper moral context? I'm wondering if it's the opinion of this blog that a Catholic president should listen to the pope when it comes to matters of foreign policy morality.

Bobbert | 02.09.03 - 2:21 am | #

Joshua,

Instead of troubling over (those few) who may be smarter or holier than you are as you do at your 8:16 above, why don't you just honestly deal with the arguments for and against the war? Whatever similarities Saddam may have to Hitler (and I say they have been greatly overstated for rhetorical effect), this war will not come to pass because of any desire on our part to help the people in Iraq. (I don't know why you seem to assume that it would.) I think as Bobbert concedes above, this war will be about creating a Pax Americana and removing the likes of Saddam, who may not be pliant to our desires. As for self-defense, Bobbert raises the prospect of Manhattan being annihilated by terrorists. However, our President has had difficulty showing any linkage at all between Saddam and terrorists (whether those involved in 9/11 or others). Indeed, Bush and the terrorists seem to share the same goal of having the US invade Iraq. Regardless, removing potential rivals to our Benevolent World Hegemony is not a legitimate basis for starting a war under a just war analysis and, if this is truly our reason for starting this war, Catholics ought not to support it. Moreover, contra your fatalism at your 8:26 above, that holy, smart guy Pope John Paul is counseling against thinking that this war is inevitable. "Be not afraid!"

Bill | 02.09.03 - 5:02 am | #

Bill, if you think I'm raising the prospect of my own death as self-defense, you're crazy. A rational perosn would concede, as JACK did, the realistic fear that all of us face. I can only take your meaning to be mocking, and mocking the my death and the deaths of millions isn't going to do you any favors on a Catholic weblog, and certainly not with me, if I'm right (and please correct me if I'm wrong).

With that in mind, I cautiously respond to the rest of your post:

In any event, the prospect of all of New York becoming a wasteland isn't half of the nightmare scenario I had in mind when envisioning a world where rogue states go nuclear and the US is powerless to stop them because of a 500 year old doctrine about how to fight. I'm also concerned about others, the future generations having to live in fear and slavery to a world where all of humanity and the "free world," (as formerly known) is held hostage to those rogue states doing what they wished because they held a nuclear trump card and were willing to use it, and the US was left impotent in the face of that. I don't particularly care for American Dominance in the world - this is NOT about empire. But I care sincerely for freedom and safety and prosperity, and that is what American Power means right now. To abandon that is to have a death wish.

There are things worth fighting for. Refusing to fight here, and letting a rogue state go nuclear, and shirking off in defeat not on the battlefield but by our own nervousness from within, would mean that America is no longer the protector of the free world, that America can be defeated, and that all that America stands for has been crushed because a madman would use a nuclear bomb against us. And North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and numerous other states would learn that the way to get what you want is to get nuclear weapons and have the guts to use them. And those states would dominate the next age, and everything that we have come to know and love about the modern world would cease to exist.

How can it possibly be moral to abandon all of that to the dictators of the world? Tell me, please, where is says that's a virtue. Tell me where is says that it's right to sell future generations into slavery to the whims of rouge nations. That there is not a hint of goodness in protecting against the link-up of mass murders and state apparatuses to support them. That the carelss indifference to the anihilation of millions in a major city, is moral?

Because I'm curious.

Bobbert | 02.09.03 - 7:42 am | #

Jack,

My point is that a new superpower would not need our pretext: it would invent one and none would have the force, or the force of will to stop it. It seems quite apparent to me that the only reason other nations exert so much influence on the U.S. is that they know we are open to it (which is good). When faced with an intractible nation, even a relatively weak one, they back down. However, I perhaps responded as if your point had been more than you intended it to be because I'm hearing this line everywhere.

Yes, the nuclear rogue problem is a driver. Here, I was saying that nuclear capabilities in a rogue nation is not "game over," it just shifts the leverage of international relations. This being the case, it is better — essential — for the United States to have credibility around its resolve to stand up to dangerous dictators.

You wrote, "I'm not entirely convinced I want to live in a world where the superpower routinely is engaging in preemptive military strikes. That I live in the U.S. and we are that superpower now, and that I generally think our judgments and motives are good, gives me some comfort with this for now. But there's no guarantee that we will always be top dog." If this is the case, it is even more important that our leverage in the above paragraph be maintained.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 8:18 am | #

Re: dictators and directors having much in common because both are auteurs.

Actually, I was thinking that they both have final cut.
alias clio | 02.09.03 - 11:00 am | #

Bill,

Instead of troubling over (those few) who may be smarter or holier than you are as you do at your 8:16 above, why don't you just honestly deal with the arguments for and against the war?

Because your mocking, snide tone has led me not to respect you enough to offer such reasons.


Joshua Jericho | 02.09.03 - 1:11 pm | #

Bobbert,

Your 7:37a post was most impressive. Very pursuasive.

Very good posts also, Justin and Joshua!

I can't believe your not convinced Jack!!


John Logan | 02.09.03 - 2:21 pm | #

Female genital mutilation is practiced in Egypt. Last time I looked that was in the Middle East. It is not an Islamic cutom per se, but common in East Africa among Muslims. If the strictures the Taliban and other radical Islamicists imposed on women don't constitute subjugation, what does? I don't know about the rest of you, but I like having civil and property rights and the opportunity to do simple things like drive a car. I've certainly gotten a strong impression that ultra-Catholics rather envy the Muslim system and do their best to see that women never live on their own, going from parental home to husbnad's home, and are tied to the home bearing, breastfeeding, and home schooling until they're safely old and gray, all the while wearing shapeless, all enveloping dresses. Maybe this is what some prelates also admire in Islam.
Sandra Miesel | 02.09.03 - 3:22 pm | #

Bobbert,

Honestly, I don't know why you would think I'm somehow mocking you. To the extent you need reassurance that I'm not, you have it. (Professor Jericho/Anon, however, may have a more grounds for complaint in that area.)

I don't discount the danger of terrorism at all. Ashcroft has announced that there has been indications that there may be some sort of terrorist attack in the US in the next couple days and I have no reason to doubt that the warning is appropriate and that the threat is very real. But the problem I see with your argument that we must invade Iraq to eliminate even a remote threat of Iraqi terror is encapsulated in this current terrorist alert. Whatever terrorists are plotting against US, there is no reason to think they are backed by or otherwise involved with Saddam. I think the last thing Saddam would want at this point is a terror attack in the US and to have the US itching for revenge against someone, anyone, since it should be plain to him that he would be a convenient fall guy and a terrorist attack would obviate the need for any further inquiry or discussion of the WMD issue. Vague theorizing aside, there has been no linkage between Saddam and 9/11 or any other anti-US terrorism. You seem to say better safe than sorry, but what standard is that? Is it just that the US plays by its own rules and that's okay because we are so good? (After all, that's why Bush believes we are so hated.) Not to encourage you, but by that standard we could justify invading Pakistan, India, Russia or even (God forbid)France. This is a strange fate for the World's Last Superpower. It seems we have become like a man with a gun, crouching in a darkened room, shooting at any indication of movement near us, fearful we may be coming under attack.

A more profound difference we have, I think, is your vision of a "Pax Americana" (your term). You seem to see it the job of the US to defend peace and justice all over the globe and therefore there would no longer be such a thing as a purely regional conflict. Any country that resisted our will would be an enemy or a potential enemy. As you may imagine, I oppose that vision of America's role in the world. My view, in shorthand, would be akin to that of Pat Buchanan's that the US should be a "Republic, not an Empire."

This, I think, brings us back to what I understood Mark to intimate towards the beginning of this thread: The Pope, it seems, is not overly impressed by the prospect of the West (a/k/a America) dominating the Middle East and the rest of the world. The role of the US as liberator would not be an unalloyed good (not that the current status quo is an unalloyed good either, but the Pope may think it preferrable). I consider the prospect you raise of selling "future generations into slavery to the whims of rouge nations" to be an unduly bleak consequence of any decision by us not to invade Iraq. But is seems that the Pope is concerned about another type of slavery, that of what he would call the Culture of Death. An interesting point and one, I think, which requires that people discussing the issue not merely use words like "freedom" as a slogan, but actually try to give it a substantive definition as it would be employed in practice. To what end are we fighting?

Bill | 02.09.03 - 4:04 pm | #

Sandra,

We're probably going to disagree about the relative importance of things like the burqa and whether or not kids are permitted to fly kites (another of the Taliban's oft-cited sins), but what about the fact that Muslims at least have an understanding that the truth exists (even if they have wrong ideas about the the truth is)? Doesn't this make them potentially more receptive to the truth of Christ than nihilists in the West, who deny the existence of any truth whatsoever?

Bill | 02.09.03 - 4:22 pm | #

John wrote:

I can't believe your not convinced Jack!!

John, if you haven't taken a look at my blog yet, I suggest you might. Because I'm not sure if it's coming across here that we aren't that far apart. I'm not naive to the horrors that Bobbert is describing. I also am not suggesting that what Bobbert or others are saying we should do is coming from a pure "political/power" view versus a "moral" one. (I think that is some of the fear of pro-war types that those of us who are hesitant to say that this action is justified are seeing the action being proposed purely as some Machiavellian move. I don't.) I'm just trying to see what bounds you are establishing to determine that the threat is indeed imminent and how much of a chance of success we realy have.
JACK | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 4:29 pm | #

No one has yet given any reason why the Vatican would prefer Islam to the West on moral/cultural grounds other than its higher birthrate--which is declining worldwide. Islamicist--notice I didn't say Islamic-- rule is a horror and an enemy of civilization. I think the Vatican's actions have another explanation, softness towards the Muslim world in hopes of preserving the lives of Christians there. It cannot be a preference for life under sharia law.
Sandra Miesel | 02.09.03 - 5:50 pm | #

Wow.

A thread with 100+ posts.

*And no Jon Peters.*

Who'd a thunk it?
Dale Price | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 9:18 pm | #

I asked Jon to observe a few common courtesies. He refused. Jon is now gone.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.09.03 - 11:08 pm | #

The "goals" of the war are critical. Removing WMD is the primary goal. In that respect, North Korea is on our radar screen as well.

At least 2 more facts weigh in favor of raising the "threat" to "imminent" and attacking Iraq: 1) Saddam is a dictator who has shown himself to be ruthlessly willing to use WMD on even his own people; 2) Iraq's complicity in the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and Iraq's harboring of terrorists that were involved in other acts of destruction against the U.S.

If our goal is liberating oppressed peoples, we're going to be fighting in lots of places for a long, long time. The fact that the Iraqi people may be grateful for our ousting of Saddam should be irrelevant to our considerations. (I sympathize with them, but I don't believe a war by the US is the proper way to address their problem.)

I think this may be why some people are uneasy about the war--taking WMD away from crazed dictators is a goal that may morally require violence in order to accomplish it; liberating the oppressed, while a good goal, does not necessarily justify violence (and certainly doesn't justify violence under the just war theory).

(Speaking of the just war theory--wasn't it formulated by Aquinas? I'm not sure it can account for the type of threats that are posed by today's WMD in the hands of lunatic-dictators and terrorists.)
Gene H | 02.10.03 - 11:36 am | #

Gene H:

(Speaking of the just war theory--wasn't it formulated by Aquinas? I'm not sure it can account for the type of threats that are posed by today's WMD in the hands of lunatic-dictators and terrorists.)

I here this constantly. But I never see why? How does its antiquity impact its relevance? It's not like it defined things in terms of specific military hardware or anything. It sets forth principles and they sure seem good tools for thinking about war actions to me. Bobbert's made what is to some a pretty convincing case that Iraq poses a grave, lasting and certain threat. I think where some of us are uncomfortable is with how we are now being asked to think of the "certain" point these days. But it isn't like there's no case to be made for it. I don't mean to pick on you Gene, but I'm baffled whenever this gets raised especially since alternative criteria are rarely offered up. We tend to get geopolitik instead.

JACK | Homepage | 02.10.03 - 12:02 pm | #

Jack,

I'm not smart enough to offer an alternative (or maybe not smart enough to criticize), but grave lasting and certain "threat" is not the just war criterion. It has to be lasting grave and certain "damage".

I don't mean to minimize the threat, nor the damage one WMD could wreak on the U.S., but I don't know if the current state of affairs will fit into the just war theory.

I agree that Bobbert has made a persuasive case, and I am in favor of immediate action against Iraq soley because of the threat it poses.

But I am not certain the just war theory is as effective a tool when we are talking about the speed at which a WMD could be deployed. In the 13th Century, armies practically had to amass on your borders before there was any threat. Today one lunatic or a small group can deploy a WMD against a large That is why the war on terrorism is important and that is why we need to eliminate WMDs, especially those in the hands of crazed dictators like Saddam and Kim Jong Il.
Gene H | 02.10.03 - 12:31 pm | #

Gene,

Yes, you are correct, I mistyped when I said "threat" instead of "damage". Partly due to the fact that we are talking about a "threat" of "damage" in this case. Just as I've typed "here" instead of "hear".

I don't deny the new challenge. But it's been with us for some time. People, frankly, just didn't take it seriously until 9/11.

I also don't see why so many people have this reaction to just war's continuing viability. It doesn't seem like the last resort, likelihood of success or proportionality principles are any less applicable. It's just that imminence one. And shouldn't we struggle with that? Shouldn't we be forced to ask what should be the restraint, if we say that the technical capability to deliver one of these weapons so quickly is so large? I'm not saying I have the answers, but I do think we should try and articulate some. Maybe at the end of the day just war theory is dead, but I'm not convinced that's the case.
JACK | Homepage | 02.10.03 - 12:54 pm | #

Jack,

I agree with you: the just war theory is *not* dead. It is incumbent on Catholics to consider the moral implications of violence, especially war. And, the just war theory is the teaching of the Church on that issue. But I think it may need some updating.

I also think Michael Novak's 2/10/03 article, cited on Mark's blog above, is a good analysis of the issue.
Gene H | 02.10.03 - 2:05 pm | #