| The Minimum Requirements for ‘Just’ Warfare
by Allen Snyder
June 13, 2003 OpEdNews.Com
Most people believe in ‘just’ warfare; that certain circumstances
morally require, sanction, and justify war. For instance, most recognize
America’s moral obligation to fight WWII, if only because a US military
installation was deliberately attacked and Americans killed. The moral
status of subsequent US wars has been shadowy and elusive, at best. Gulf
War II is no exception.
Through conventions, accords, and war crimes trials, we’ve codified
rules for ‘just’ warfare. Moral philosophers, a pesky bunch certainly,
have packed the whole conceptual mess into theories whose fundamentals
inhabit dusty corners of many overpriced college textbooks.
In late April, with The Occupation just getting underway, I reread the
chapter in my Ethics book on ‘Violence, Terrorism, and War’. I
concentrated on the four principles for conducting ‘just’ warfare and
considered which, if any, BushCo’s invasion of Iraq satisfied.
Here’s the gist of my admittedly rudimentary analysis.
Principle #1: Just Cause - there must be serious reasons to justify
military force against another nation.
Of all the bogus reasons offered by BushCo; find and destroy WMD™,
regime change, spreading democracy, stabilizing the region, and liberating
Iraqis, only WMD™ are dire enough for war. The other reasons, while
debatably noble, smack of cultural and ideological arrogance, intolerance,
and hegemony.
There haven’t been WMD™ of any consequence in Iraq since long
before the Bushquistadors arrived. The only hope BushCo had for
vindicating its invasion vanished in clouds of smoke as Iraq destroyed its
stockpiles in the years following Gulf War I.
Though its minions have shifted the focus of The Occupation from WMD™
to liberation (and more recently, to weapons ‘programs’), riding the
‘freedom train’ only raises the justification bar for BushCo. The more
nebulous the reasons for war, the heavier the justificatory burden.
Principle #2: Proportionality - the probable ‘good’ to be produced
by intervention must outweigh the likely ‘evil’ the use of force will
cause.
Predictable, but completely ignored by BushCo, was the ‘evil’ the
war would unleash in terms of civilian casualties, increased anti-US
hatred, widespread acts of terrorism, and a pervasive international
distrust of US motives.
BushCo repeatedly assured us there would be hugs and flowers all around
once Saddam was gone. Instead, Saddam is MIA, ‘Chemical’ Ali has been
miraculously resurrected, and we’re averaging about one dead soldier a
day. We were told The Occupation would help stabilize the region. Instead,
more war, terrorism, and violent unrest seem inevitable.
Is it ‘good’ that Bechtel and Haliburton have hijacked Iraq’s
oil? ‘Good’ that thousands of Iraqi civilians were murdered for it?
That the international community stands united against BushCo? That the
domestic fallout has been an unhealthy divisiveness, a failing economy, a
swelling debt, and reprehensible civil rights abuses?
Only a certifiable BushCo wingnut defines ‘good’ this way.
Principle #3: Last Resort - the idea that since military interventions
are extremely costly in terms of suffering, loss of life, and other
destructions, all other means must first be exhausted.
Can’t deny BushCo tried a semblance of diplomacy, but the more Paul
Wolfowitz opens his mouth, the more obvious it is Iraq’s death warrant
was signed on 9/11. The rush was on to get the war out during the Spring
Season’s pleasant weather. Now BushCo Executive VP (British Division)
Tony Blair is begging his pissed-off Parliament to give the WMD™ search
thing a few more months.
Damn, if only Hans Blix had thought of that!
Principle #4: Right Intention - the intervention must always be
directed to the goal set by the cause and to the eventual and ultimate
goal of peace.
BushCo is desperately hoping just one of its multiple causes pans out
so they can claim a goal and a direction. Something must be foisted on the
public long enough for Dubya to get re-elected, but nothing seems to be
working. This retroactive justification nonsense and single-minded
determination to force the WMD™ issue to the ‘planting evidence’
stage extinguishes what little credibility BushCo has left.
What will they say when no WMD™ are found, no Iraqi democracy is
formed, no Saddam found, more war, more terrorism, and more American
deaths? Will it matter to the families of th dead that BushCo’s heart
was in the right place?
BushCo’s long-range goal may indeed be peace, but certainly on its
own limited and strictly enforced terms. Theirs is an antebellum,
plantation-type peace with Iraqis tending the oil fields and Haliburton,
et al. cracking the whip.
Doesn’t look good.
My conclusion, even based on a very generous reading of the text, is
that BushCo categorically failed to satisfy these essential ethical
principles. Their conduct has been off-the-charts unprincipled and no one
should really be surprised that BushCo’s unconstitutional, illegal, and
internationally condemned crusade is also flagrantly and brazenly immoral.
Allen Snyder is an
instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be reached at asnyder111@hotmail.com
This
article is copyright by Allen Snyder and originally
published by opednews.com but
permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so
long as this credit is attached. |
