Just War Theory and Iraq

[Janny]

My RS text book reads thus:
The conditions for war to be called a just war:
1. War must be declared by a proper authority, such as a government. A rebellion by citizens is not enough.
2. The cause must be just; there must be a good reason for the war. It is not just to start a war to expand an empire.
3. The intention of the war must be to do good and to overcome evil. This rules out revenge, ambition and nationalism.
4. War must be a last resort. Everything else should be tried first (which means extensive negotiations must be attempted). If a country is attacked in a minor way, it should not automatically declare war on the aggressor.
5. The good a war will do must outweigh the harm. Is it worth the loss of life?
6. It must be possible to win. War should never be a futile gesture. If success looks unlikely war should not be started.
7. The methods used must be just. [Janny: 'ouch'] Force should be in proportion to the situation. Excessive cruelty is not acceptable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) expands on these conditions:
8. You can only go to war if the opponent will cause damage which is 'lasting, grave and certain'. [Janny: 'oh dear']
9. You cannot go to war if the damage your weapons will cause will be more severe than the problems you want to solve. 'The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition'.
[End quote]

I wrote this out because I wanted to begin a debate over the Iraq War with hindsight. Gaffer touched on this recently, so I thought I'd take it up. I think you'll agree that now it seems bad, certainly the war has gone wrong to an extent. But was it a just war? I have always supported the war and prior to conflict tallied criteria off with situation. Then it certainly seemed like it was just (Though I believe the book I may have used wa not ammended with points 8 and 9).
While I am aware I'm opening the sluice gates to 'IT WAS ALL FOR OIL', I ask: Was the Iraq just and does it remains so?

[Insidious Rex]

Did I hear the sound of a can of worms opening?

The simple answer to your question is: depends on who is answering the question.

[sun-star]

Well, I can see worms slithering everywhere, so I'll keep it brief

Fundamentally, it's still a just war if you believe that
a) the motivation behind it was morally right - i.e. to overcome evil
b) there was a credible threat
c) it was a last resort
d) the methods used were and are acceptable

This is something which is better judged in hindsight than in anticipation. Before the war started, I believed it was just. And now, well, I just don't know anymore.

Of course, if you don't accept the concept of a just war at all (and some of those criteria are a bit dodgy) you can still say it was the right thing to do from a pragmatic standpoint.

[brownjenkins]

i don't accept the idea of a just war at all... in fact, i'm not really even sure if war is pragmatic in the long run

that said, war will happen and it must be responded too... i would prefer however, if it was more like in WWII where we were very reluctant to enter and our motive was undisputed self-defense... and it was truely the last resort

none of these are true for iraq... they were contained, they had no wmds, they posed no real threat to us, and they had little or nothing to do with terrorism

and back to pragmatism... i believe that the unfortunate result has been more recruits to the terrorist organizations who are against us... we have gained nothing and lost quite a lot... not pragmatic

[jerseydevil]

I don't think there are just wars or unjust wars actually. I think there are only wars. Was World War II just? If one looks at it from the German and Japanese side - I would say it was not - but then one looks at it from the allies side and it was.

Now people can argue whether Iraq was a "just' war all they want. But really - what would have happened in the long run with Saddam Hussein? The world would have gotten tired of keeping him in check, there would have been more underhanded deals between Saddam and the UN, France, Germany and Russia would have continued to have behind closed room deals with him. France was already calling for an end to containment. He didn't have Dr Death or whatever her nickname was for medical reasons. It was for one reason and that was to develop biologiccal weapons. He would have been a severe threat in the future. He was KNOWN to be supporting various terrorist groups with money - even if it was not al Qaeda directly.

We went to war in Bosnia for far far less than what was happening in the Middle East and Iraq.

The war may have hit a HUGE road bump right now with the "torture" pictures - but it is only one part of the war. The war is over terrorism and Iraq is ONE battle in the overall war in my opinion. This will hurt - but I think we can overcome it. This is a world war to change the Middle East.

Unless we bring jobs and freedoms to the Middle East - we will never win the war on terrorism - because there will always be an easy flow of disenfranchised Middle Easterns who are all too ready to blame their problems on the US and Israel. In addition to Iraq - we MUST solve the palestinian problem. But who the hell knows how to do that one.

This is a world war - and people better be treating it as a LONG TERM commitment like we did during World War II. No one would have questioned if we should have gone into the various countries we did during World War II that we were forced to fight in. The war on terrorism is NOT only about Al Qaeda.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

I agree with the need for commitment to the war on terror. It is a different type of war, and one that is hard to fight against an enemy that doesn't stand still.

The premise for the Iraq war was actually to find those oh so elusive weapons of mass destruction. Sure there were other motives, but if one thinks back to before the war began, Powell making is 'smoking gun' presentation to the UN, Blair announcing to parliment that we have located the weapons, and Bush saying the same every chance he had. No weapons have been found, and the country was occupied! Going to war with no clear motive, or a false one, for political ends? Ahem...Vietnam, anyone.

Touche?

God its good to be back...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan

The premise for the Iraq war was actually to find those oh so elusive weapons of mass destruction. Sure there were other motives, but if one thinks back to before the war began, Powell making is 'smoking gun' presentation to the UN, Blair announcing to parliment that we have located the weapons, and Bush saying the same every chance he had. No weapons have been found, and the country was occupied! Going to war with no clear motive, or a false one, for political ends? Ahem...Vietnam, anyone.

Touche?

Actually =- it seems as if the international media ONLY CHOSE top report on the weapons of mass destruction. There were SEVERSAL reasons here that Bush talked about going to war with Iraq. WMD was only one part of it. Of course ALL the worlds intelligence said the very same thing though - that Iraq possessed them. Touché.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
The simple answer to your question is: depends on who is answering the question.

Quite. Apart from the fact that the answer is "no", of course.

Whether or not a war is just, it (presumably) still needs a justification.

Looking at your list of items, Janny, here are some thoughts:
1 - To make such a declaration, you have to have a specific enemy and clear objectives. This "war on terror" is rhetorical: you can't actually make war on "terrorism" except metaphorically. This vagueness has been exploited to conflate Iraq with terrorism (see 2,3). Now we hear that it's actually part of a grand plan to democratise the world at the point of a gun. It's an interesting theory, but whether war is the right laboratory in which to test one's geopolitical terraforming hypotheses is morally suspect to say the least.

2,3 - Well, IMO these are the real reasons for it, but that's another story...
4 - All this has been gone through.

5 - Debatable. I've long been of the view that the outcomes of this (or any) war were far too unpredictable to be sure that its good consequences (removal of a vile dictator and prevention of further abuses) would outweigh the bad (killing of innocent people, perpetuation of hatred, etc). I'm also of the view that war is in and of itself a very bad outcome.

6 - See 1, specifically the lack of clear objectives.
7 - If you accept the Iraq war as just (which I don't) I don't think its methods have been excessively cruel, compared with other wars. I do think there's a certain irony in the use of the tactic of "Shock and Awe" in opposition to "terrorism" though.
8 - Oh dear indeed.
9 - Once again, the use of weapons of mass destruction to root out weapons of mass destruction has a certain Orwellian irony.

EDIT:
Just another thought in hindsight, janny. The danger here, of course, is that we descend into an "oh no it isn't; oh yes it is" type pantomime. I think that your approach is a good way of organising the discussion by providing a bit of structure. What do you think about addressing these items one at a time, starting with the "declaration" question?

[Sween]

The winners of wars tend to write the history book but for the time we cannot see an end to this situation so im just gonna say it was not.

I tend to believe that war should not happen unless one country attacks another then by all means i think its fair game. As for abuse of the people within a country i think that its the peoples responability to change things allmost every free country at some point in its history has had people stand up and say this is not on im gonna change it and ill tell you one thing they have allmost allways succeded.

Now since sadams gone its clear what he did do very well was keep all these little tribes of people apart dont forget Iraq is an invention by us (i think it was acctually the british) so they really are not a normal nation he kept them in line by been the alpha bully. Not very nice but did maintain the sence of order.

but we did invade and i dont think that we can solve the problems we cannot be the alpha tribe there its just gonna piss a load of arabs off. Now what advice our leaders had i cannot say but i saw some experts raise this point a couple of times. Its all a bit of a mess really

[Janny]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
No weapons have been found, and the country was occupied!

Our manon the ground, Beor says he wouldn't be surprised if the weapons were there but as yet unfound. I certainly find perspective a problem at the distance I sit.

Okay Gaffer. Point 1: I'm not even sure I agree with this as a criterion. What about corrupt governments or reasonable rebellions against governments? Like Hungary '56, for example.

Either way. The war was declared by a government and I don't believe the government would be stupid enough not to make a legal (in letter if not in spirit of the law) case.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween

I tend to believe that war should not happen unless one country attacks another then by all means i think its fair game. As for abuse of the people within a country i think that its the peoples responability to change things allmost every free country at some point in its history has had people stand up and say this is not on im gonna change it and ill tell you one thing they have allmost allways succeded.

Hmmmm - and how many Europeans supported the war in Bosnia? I wish Europe had felt that way before begging the US to go in there and wanting us (requiring us) to lead the way and have us once again to sacrifice ourselves on European soil.

So I wonder - why was it okay to go into Bosnia again? What was the reason for going in there? i can't remember with the Europeans constantly saying how it was so wrong to go into iraq since they didn't have any wmd nor had they attacked any country outside their borders. Oh yeah - i remember now - Europe was AFRAID that it would spill over and it was a preemptive strike to make sure it didn't. Oh yeah - had to think there with all the whining about the US going on.

Don't let the humanitaian reasons for going into Bosnia go to your head either - it had nothing to do with that. The attrocities under Meloshivic had been going on for years without Europe or the UN batting an eye.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hmmmm - and how many Europeans supported the war in Bosnia? I wish Europe had felt that way before begging the US to go in there and wanting us (requiring us) to lead the way and have us once again to sacrifice ourselves on European soil.

So I wonder - why was it okay to go into Bosnia again? What was the reason for going in there? i can't remember with the Europeans constantly saying how it was so wrong to go into iraq since they didn't have any wmd nor had they attacked any country outside their borders. Oh yeah - i remember now - Europe was AFRAID that it would spill over and it was a preemptive strike to make sure it didn't. Oh yeah - had to think there with all the whining about the US going on.

Don't let the humanitaian reasons for going into Bosnia go to your head either - it had nothing to do with that. The attrocities under Meloshivic had been going on for years without Europe or the UN batting an eye.

JD you can throw up past conflicts all you like to justify what goes on now. Bosnia had invaded several other country if im not much mistaken plus its on our doorstep so it does become our problem.

We did ask you for help because frankly you've the biggest force and the most resources plus we all know you love to stick ur nose in in other peoples business