But Mark, Weigel uses a strained conception of "defense against aggression under way" to support a war to create a new "world order based on justice and freedom." Simply because he tips his cap to just war theory doesn't mean he applies it seriously. Nowhere does Weigel identify "defense against aggression under way" with "self defense" and then he transforms the idea of *keeping* the peace into actively bringing about a new world order. How is this not doing evil (i.e., starting a war) so that a purported good (i.e., a world order of justice and freedom) may be brought into being? Isn't this the same as justifying breaking a few eggs to make an omlette? How can this be reconciled with Cathlic just war teaching?
Bill | 11.19.02 - 10:29 am | #

But what is Weigel's just war analysis?

Weigel does not expressly claim that a new war against Iraq would be merely a continuation of the old one. Presumably, the just war rationale for the Gulf War was to repel Iraq's incursion into Kuwait. Currently, Iraq has been out of Kuwait for 10 years and the Kuwaitis don't seem especially concerned about the threat of an immanent return. To say that a new war would be a continuation of the old would be to seek to justify the new war on a grandfathered basis that has not been a practical concern for a decade and then to use that grandfathered justification as a further basis for continuing the war to *create* (as opposed to defend) a "world order based on justice and freedom."

If Weigel is indeed making such a claim as, I take it, you suggest, he would seem to me to be using just war theory as a departure for a brand of utopianism that has no basis I know of in the just war tradition. This Weigel does not even attempt to defend, but instead seeks to insulate the decision to wage war from criticism by appeals to deferrence to our leaders' "charism of political discernment."

As for examples of counter-factual history, here is an interesting article from today's lewrockwell.com:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ calla...callahan97.html

Bill | 11.19.02 - 2:28 pm | #

Bill: the war against Iraq never ended. Iraq has been shooting at US jets for years. Try telling the pilots flying the no-fly zones that the guns and missiles pointed their way are "not a practical concern". There is real, actual, ongoing conflict: the "peace" is an illusion.

I see nothing in Weigel's article to suggest that he is departing from the Catholic just war tradition. In fact, he is one of the few who deal with the real thing, as should be clear from his article. I suggest that you are not giving him credit for working strictly within the classic just war framework.

I don't even understand why you insist on Weigel equating "defense against aggression under way" with "self-defense". It looks like word games irrelevant to just war theory. The reasoning is simple: a case can be made that Iraq is engaged in aggression, and war against Iraq would be justified as a defense against that aggression. This is allowed under just war tradition.

Additionally, classic just war tradition is not limited to a narrow definition of self-defense. As Weigel points out, there are 3 primary titles for war. I would also like to point out that coming to the defense of oppressed innocents is a secondary title for war, again in the just war tradition. Given Saddam Hussein's treatment of his citizens, a case can easily be made for this justification.

Many critics of war against Iraq, I suspect, are not in touch with the authentic Catholic just war tradition. The modern interpretation, as Weigel points out, is a departure from this tradition, and possibly a doctrinal corruption. Try looking at the old Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on war, for example, and you will find quite a different picture.
Christopher Wong | 11.19.02 - 3:18 pm | #

Christopher,

Weigel brings up the issue of self defense, but he never actually claims that an Iraq war would be one of self defense for the the US. The question, then, is who are we defending? Towards whom is Iraq being aggressive and what is the nature of that aggression? Weigel isn't clear. He seems to include actions against Iran in his indictment, even though the US was complicit in those actions. The Iraqis were aggrressive toward Kuwait, but have not been so for 10 years. We are defending against aggression, but we are not defending ourselves or any other identified party. Is this a matter of aggression in a vaccuum without any object?

The Iraqi southern no-fly zones were ostensibly to protect the Shiites in the region from Iraqi air power. The bombing runs by the US and British do not necessarily follow from the creation of these zones. The Iraqis have not launched any recent attacks -- either airborne or otherwise -- on the Shiites, so they could be said to be in substantial compliance with a provision which they could quite reasonably argue was the product of duress. As far as the Gulf War having never really ended, this is not an argument anyone in the UN, Britain or the Bush administration has ever seriously advanced. Hence, Congress' "war" declaration and the recent debates about a new Security Council resolution.

As far as protecting innocents, do you (or would Weigel) seriously maintain that any purported concern by the US for the welfare of the Kurds or Shiites is anything other than pretextual or self-serving? If so, you need to explain the selective concern the US has displayed towards these peoples over the past several decades.

Weigel clearly states that his purported just war goal would be the creation of a new world order of justice and freedom. This seems to me to be something of a departure from the "classic just war framework." I do not see that there is any license for it. I think Weigel invokes just war theory and then goes on to advance something altogether different.

Bill | 11.19.02 - 4:13 pm | #

I think it should be clear that self defense is a motive. When a power is menacing someone, it tautologically follows that someone is being menaced. That peace and justice can be a motive does not mean that they are the ONLY motive. The right to defense is implicit.

There is nothing in just war theory that states that the right to war expires with the first military operation. On the contrary, as long as the threat remains, so does the right. The reality of combat is that it need not be continuous. The threat has not ended, and in fact has increased again over time, so the original titles for war remain.

Aiding oppressed innocents is a valid motive and a valid title for war. It is entirely irrelevant what happened in the past, and it is entirely irrelevant what we think past motives might be. We not justifying past war. What matters is now. Us. And it's time to discard that old logical fallacy that brings about the silly "blood for oil" slogan. In a democracy, the people's motives are the nation's motives. The current administration has named Saddam's oppression of his own people (against UN resolutions) as justification for action, to both the UN and the US. So aiding oppressed innocents is a current motive, and many Americans agree. This title for war is valid, current and present.

Catholic just war theory states that one title for war is "the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the future" (Cath. Encycl.). That motive is legitimate, so I do not see Weigel departing from the just war tradition. In fact, I suggest that any accusations of "departure" from the just war tradition should first state what aspect it is that he is supposed to be departing from. Until then, "just war tradition" will just be an empty slogan.


Christopher Wong | 11.19.02 - 4:40 pm | #

Sent this letter to:

Dear Andrew,

Between "obligations" (that which MUST be done) and "prohibitions" (that
which MUST NOT be done) there is big middle area called "prudential
judgments" (that which may or may not be done, depending on competing goods,
factual considerations which are in dispute, alternative tactics toward
achieving a legitimate goal, etc.) To give a few examples, the Church can
say we are "obliged" to make sure that war is waged according to the
legitimate authority; and we are "prohibited" from deliberately or
indiscriminately targeting civilians.

Other than these and similar principles, the Catholic Church has no
"doctrine" on war with Iraq.

The USCCB statement is itself couched in prudential language (lay
translation: "This is just an opinion, guys.") Disagreeing with an opinion
is not the same as dissenting from a doctrine. I can say, "I think it would
be both wise and just to remove Saddam Hussein by force," act on that
judgment, and remain a loyal Catholic. But if I were to say, "Nuke 'em til
they glow," I would be in rebellion against God and the Church. And be on my
way to hell.

Julianne Wiley

Julianne Wiley | 11.19.02 - 5:24 pm | #

Christopher,

Although you may, Weigel hasn't claimed self defense as a motive. He hasn't identified any substantive threat to the US posed by Iraq. However, he hasn't identified a threat to anyone else either. That's why I find troubling his statement about "defense of aggression under way."

Apparently, you believe that Iraq is still threatening Kuwait. Kuwaitis themselves do not seem to share your view. If you have some basis for your claim in this regard, I would appreciate hearing it.

There being no threatening action by Iraq, there is no basis on which to go to war to punish it to prevent future aggression. As with the notion of self defense, once the aggression is over, a defender loses his privilege to use force. For there to be a new privilege, there needs to be a new justification. Otherwise, the US would have a carte blanche privilege in perpetuity to punish Iraq on the basis of the 1990s invasion of Kuwait (to which the US arguably gave prior approval via our ambassador April Glaspie), clearly an intolerable result.

I understand you to claim that the US would go to war against Iraq, in part, to defend the Kurds and the Shiites. Factually, I think you would have great difficulty supporting that claim, both for historical reasons and because of current condtions. (Right now, Kurds do not want an invasion, but the preservation of the status quo with northern Iraq as a semi-autonomous region. What do you suggest is the US's plan wrt the Kurds and the Shiites in a post-war Iraq? Self-determination? Democracy? Not likely.)

More fundamentally, you seem to suggest that any purported justification must be accepted at face value. I consider that position naive in the extreme. Likewise, your attribution of the motives of the Bush administration to The People generally. Prior to the vote in Congress authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, phone calls and letters to Congressmen were 90% opposed to such authorization. Obviously, for better or worse, we do not live in a direct democracy.

Bill | 11.19.02 - 5:49 pm | #

Weigel seems to me to argue that this is about finishing a war that Saddam never really gave up on. I think that's a cogent argument. Saddam's pursuit of WMD is consistent and sustained violation of the terms of the peace. Had we done something similar when Hitler occupied the Rhineland, many problems could have been avoided later.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 12:48 am | #

Bill,

Even if we did live in a direct democracy, counting letters and phone calls sent to Congress isn't how it would operate. I suspect you realize that if a direct national vote had been taken on giving the president the war authority that Congress gave him, it would have passed by a wide margin. If you'd deny that, then I guess your real beef is probably with all of those elected representatives who took it upon themselves to vote against their constituents wishes. If you're honest, I think you'll admit that their votes were made precisely to satisfy those constituencies.

Tom
Tom Pollard | 11.20.02 - 4:39 pm | #

Tom,

To the extent it matters, I doubt very much that a plebescite would have resulted in a strong vote in favor of (uncontitutionally) giving Bush the authority to declare war.

Remember, around the time of the vote, pollsters found that there was a majority in favor of war, but that this majority was trending down and was at about 50% when pollsters asked about the prospect of significant casualties. All this without anyone campaigning against the war. Bush was busy twisting Republican arms and the Democrats thought, incorrectly as it turned out, that by signing on to the war, they could remove it as an issue in the November election and could get voters to focus on economic issues troubling for Republicans.

If there had been a plebescite, there would have been an anti-war campaign. Perhaps this would have resulted in forcing the War Party to define its reasons and goals more coherently and therefore more effectively. However, even if the war vote passed, Bush's deception about the threat posed by North Korea prior to the vote may have caused suffiecient rage among voters as to make a declaration of war by Bush impractical. It's an interesting question.

My point was more general, however. My point is that, despite our democracy, The People have very little say as to particular policy decisions, such that it is inaccurate, for the most part, to describe these decisions as the will of The People. Whether you agree with them or not, the government's positions on foreign aid, restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, immigration, etc. are not what they would be if The People had their way. Similarly, the credit/blame for this war, if it happens, will go to the administration which will have brought it to pass, not to The People generally.

(An interesting aside: Bin Laden has justified targeting US civilians on the basis that it is our tax dollars that fund US activities he does not like. Apparently, he shares your view and Christopher's about the responsibility for our government's actions. Power to The People!)

Bill | 11.20.02 - 5:39 pm | #

Bill: on Kuwait's support, BBC notes that "Kuwait is the strongest regional supporter of plans to topple Saddam Hussein". As the original victim, it has granted the US title under just war theory for war against Iraq. That title remains and is not revoked. Oh, and Saddam is still holding Kuwaiti and US prisoners of war (in violation of UN resolutions), so that is still an ongoing violation of both countries' interests, and another title for war. And again, there is no expiration clause at the end of a military operation in just war theory: the threat remains, conflict remains, therefore the original titles remain.

The US is justified to protect Iraqi minorities in the north and south, at their request. It is doing so, right now. It is being fired upon, and is firing back, right now. There is ongoing war, right now. There is a just war going on, right now. A minor little factoid you might want to keep in mind.

You belittle support for war, but the fact remains that the majority of the US does support war against Iraq. Phone-in campaigns by their self-selective nature are statistically invalid. You have absolutely no proof that there is any sort of majority against war. So my original point stands: the intention behind war is that of a whole lot of people besides those accused under the silly "blood for oil" slogan. Regardless of your spin, the will behind war is the will of a whole lot of people, from the President down to the soldiers. Oh, and democracy is irrelevant: just war theory was formed in the context of non-democracies, and was valid even then.

Weigel did identify the threat of WMD in his article. You must have missed it.






Christopher Wong | 11.21.02 - 6:36 pm | #

Oops: let's try the BBC link again.
Christopher Wong | 11.21.02 - 6:39 pm | #