Based on the title to your post, Mark, it is increasingly obvious to me that "Just War" is not an objective analysis and cannot be done before a conflict takes place. And given that, it seems to me that unless your interpretation of it is wrong or misplaced, then the doctrine is useless for all practical purposes.

You say: "Well, *that's* a relief. We've found the WMDs at last!"

Hence, the war would've been just, right? We'd only know AFTER it's taken place.

If we can only know if a war is just after it's taken place, then Just War analysis is not to be done BEFORE a war happens. In effect, it relegates Catholic doctrine to the sidelines and makes all of us historians that contribute to the discussion after the fact. Which, by the way, is exactly what's happening. No one really listened to any "Just War" considerations before the war, because no one COULD know if it was just. But NOW, after it's over, Just War fans are having a debate about it while the rest of the country for the most part has moved on.

This is idiotic. If Catholic doctrine designed to influence national policy has no influence in world events, and can only be known after-the-fact, it is effectively useless.

Am I wrong on this?
Bobbert | 05.29.03 - 6:44 pm | #

PS: I know it's a parody link.
Bobbert | 05.29.03 - 6:45 pm | #

Bobbert:

You're making this more complex than it is: the sole reason I supported the war was because it seemed to me to be prudent to keep an aggressive murderer from deploying WMD against us which (my government assured me) were there by the warehouseful and which (neocon war enthusiasts assured me) constituted an imminent threat to American security. 9/11 being rather fresh in my mind, I agreed with most sensible people that it's not a good idea to wait until a shipping container with a nuke in it goes off in the Port of Seattle before you say, "Gosh! Something should be done about WMDs in the hand of lunatics!" So I plumped for war. I did this because my government said that's why we were fighting and it seemed prudent to me. ("If you could only see what crosses my desk every day" said the Highly Placed White Horse Souse when I had my memorable phone call to the White House).

Now, however, it's beginning to look very much as though all those confident assurances that WMDs would be found everywhere ("Just you wait!") were rather ill-informed or deliberately false. Since that was the sole justification I could see for the war, not Fixing the World, I find that troubling. Yes, it's wonderful that with our victory Iraqis now have an opportunity to embrace new forms of Foaming Bronze Age Fanatic oppression, but from an "imminent aggressive threat to American security" perspective, I not sold that the original reason for the war was real. Fadging up new reasons to justify the war when the original one seems to be evaporating now seems a bit unconvincing and makes me a bit hesitant about endorsing our next adventure in nation building.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.29.03 - 7:01 pm | #

Bobbert:

First, no it wasn't a parody link. Here's the article in the [a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A42036-2003May26.html"]Washington Post[/a].

Second, don't confuse moral certitude with fact. Just war doctrine doesn't require that WMD be found. (And thus rendering it just a post-war evaluation.) But it does require moral certitude about the existence of the threat. As Mark mentions, the primary thrust was the argument that we had evidence of WMD and the assumption (generally accepted) that Iraq would either use them or we couldn't afford to wait and see. That no WMD are being found casts some doubt on whether the government was being truthful when they said that they had credible evidence of the existence of WMD. That's essentially what Mark is saying here. It's still possible that we had evidence that bore all the reasonable markings of credibility, but proved to be wrong. That's fine, albeit lamentable. What concerns some is the question of whether that isn't the story, but that the government essentially lied about having evidence, or the extent or credibility of it.
JACK | Homepage | 05.29.03 - 7:31 pm | #

Mark, are you planning to subject us to every article that appears in the media mocking the fact that the mobile weapons lab has been the only evidence found to date of a WMD capability?

There was no element of surprise -- Saddam had able time to transfer some of these weapons out of Iraq.

And we are still left with the mystery of why Saddam didn't permit a full and complete verification of the destruction or evidence of a past destruction of the WMD's -- if in fact the 1998 WMD cache was destroyed -- because it would have left him in power in Iraq.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.29.03 - 10:03 pm | #

I find it hard to believe that Sadaam was able to transfer or destroy any WMD within the months leading up to the war with Iraq. We had special forces in place long before the war officially began, and we knew exactly what was going on there.

Two quotes from March 18, 2003, as the war was beginning:

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

http://news.independent.co.uk/wo...sp? story=410484

It seems implausible that Saddam would have been able to destroy/move large amounts of weapons without our knowledge.
Jenny | 05.30.03 - 8:09 am | #

I agree pretty much completely with Jack subject to some discomfort with the moral certitude standard. It seems to me that the degree of certitude required should turn on other factors such as the comparative risks and benefits of the various courses of action and inaction available. In the real world we must make decisions constantly in an environment that seldom allows for moral certitude. Such a standard would seem to unduly favor inaction without regard to consequences and risks. This strikes me as leading to an irrational paralysis of conduct.
Mike Petrik | 05.30.03 - 11:39 am | #

Mark, your ecclesial/theological commentary is great. Just can the war stuff and you'll do fine. You don't have the wherewithall in terms of knowledge and subtlety of thought to discuss the war informatively. You come off sounding weepy and half-baked when you go anywhere near the topic.
Tony Wright | 05.30.03 - 5:21 pm | #

"Weepy?"
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 5:33 pm | #

The thing that I was most terrified of before the war began was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. I thought that when we attacked Iraq we were doomed because they would unleash those weapons on us. But, silly me. Little did I know that Iraq's response to being attacked would be to destroy all their wmd's. Makes sense.
I think that the next time a burgler tries to break into my home, I will throw my gun out the window.

(I don't really own a gun)
Christian | 05.31.03 - 12:03 pm | #