A just war in Iraq?

Steve Farrell
web posted February 10, 2003

In the days ahead, as President Bush and his administration turn
up the volume on the drums of war to deafening new levels -- it
will be well to remember that some of us, even some of us
conservatives, still recall and still support the early American and
Christian "just war" doctrine.

A scripture held sacred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, for instance, invites nations "never to give an offense,
yea, never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy,
except it were to preserve their lives," and their families, and their
religion, and their freedom. It was, mostly, a defensive war
doctrine, which promised prosperity to those nations who
obeyed it -- and a withdrawal of Divine protection for those who
did not -- or in other words it condemned going to war for the
love of blood and war, power and wealth, or an inordinate spirit
of vengeance or prejudice.

But it isn't a cut and dry position. In the same record, enemies
preparing for war, or positioning for war, though not yet
attacking the homeland were cut off, surrounded, and routed by
pre-emptive strikes, when evidence gathered by spies was
placed side by side with past and current attitudes and actions of
the enemy. With a fixed and dedicated enemy on the warpath,
the religious commentator heralded pre-emptive war as just and
wise. Why wait until the enemy has an upper hand, and
casualties are high and it is too late?

This seems to be the position of President Bush -- a pre-emptive
strike against impending enemy designs, based, his administration
claims, on solid intelligence and the voice of history.

The Catholics too, have a just war doctrine that is worth studying
in the context of our pending War with Iraq. Some
commentators note that this particular dogma justifies defensive
war only -- meaning, a response in kind when under actual
attack, which they say, disqualifies "Bush's War." They err.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read:

"Catholic philosophy … concedes to the State the full natural
right of war, whether defensive, as in case of another's attack in
force upon it; offensive (more properly, coercive), where it finds
it necessary to take the initiative in the application of force; or
punitive, in the infliction of punishment for evil done against itself
or, in some determined cases, against others."

Three general cases qualify, then, as a natural right under this
faith's definition.

1. In defense -- in response to a current attack. 
2. In offense -- apparently, when one knows war is inevitable,
and that a first strike would minimize the damage to the
homeland, and optimize the chances for victory.
3. An after the fact act of justice for an attack against one's
nation or against one's ally.

President Bush has certainly framed his arguments consistent
with all three.

1. The Bush Administration has noted, US planes flying patrol in
accordance with international agreement to which Iraq is a party,
suffer regular attacks by Iraq.
2. The Bush Administration maintains that Iraq is secretly
building weapons of mass destruction in violation of post Gulf
War Treaties, that Iraq is secretly forging alliances with terrorists
who threaten violence against the United States, and that Iraq
has a butcher at its helm who, has and will use such weapons
against the United States and it allies -- especially Israel. To stop
Iraq, now, would be to minimize the potential for harm, the
Administration argues.
3. The Bush Administration holds, that a continuation of justice
for past Iraqi aggression against its neighbors and its own
people, justifies a US presence in Iraq. Iraq, however, is in
breach of the terms of peace, and so like an ex-con violating
patrol, she must pay a price, for the good of humanity.

Despite what some detractors may say, the President has framed
his arguments consistent with Just War Theory. Some of the
intelligence that underscores the Administration's position is
classified. Nevertheless, this is a republic, or representative
government, not a direct democracy. The people do not need to
have access to secret intelligence, only our representatives do,
and they have already seen enough to justify a joint resolution
permitting the President to bring down Saddam, by what ever
means necessary. This was a done deal months ago.

On the other hand, the President can do three things to
strengthen his hand.

One, throw in for good measure, evidence unearthed by the
New American, the Washington Times' Insight Magazine, and
Judicial Watch, regarding Iraqi sponsoring of the Oklahoma City
bombing. The evidence is solid enough that Judicial Watch has
sued Iraq for in behalf of the Oklahoma City victim's families.
Let's hear more about this.

Two, stop trying to legitimize and empower the United Nations.
History will one day prove that no organization in the history of
the world has been a greater sponsor state of terrorism and
communism than the United Nations. Any permanent peace that
follows victory in Iraq, that involves the UN, may only make
things worse.
 
Three, do not permit the exile of Saddam Hussein. This is an old
trick of the International Community. Hold an alliance together
by failing fully to route one's enemy. Austrian 19th Century
Insider, Prince Metternich, revealed how it was that Napoleon
was exiled to the nearby island of Elba, following his defeat --
rather than put to death -- so that "the threat of Napoleon"
would hold the alliance together. After Napoleon agreed to
economic concessions with the Bank of England, Napoleon
"sprang forth" from "exile" to lead his army once again -- backed
by English money. Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer; treat
him accordingly.

Contact Steve at stevemfarrell@aol.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com