Me on War (Part 3)

To sum up the points so far: The "Nationalistic/Patriotic" view has, in my opinion, had its day, and is now the problem rather than the solution. The "Pacifist" view is not only unrealistic, it tacitly implies that there are no differences among human societies, governments, and regimes worth fighting for. I dispute this. But, having said that, I propose a simple test for any politician who wants to get the country embroiled in a war. If he would be willing to pick up a gun and man the front lines himself -- or have his son do the same -- then fine, go ahead and pursue your cause; at least you're being honest. How many of our present-day politicians would be willing to answer that question in the affirmative? On the other hand, John McCain, who has certainly "paid his dues" in the warmaking department, is a hawk nonpareil. So simply having suffered the consequences does not constitute an immunization shot against further folly. (In fact, it could be regarded as a classic case of "cognitive dissonance". But that's for another time.)

To continue our summary -- the "Anti-Pacifist" view, while it has much historical and sociological validity, cannot provide compensation for the massive cultural destruction caused by war. Please note that the "Nationalistic/Patriotic" view and the "Anti-Pacifist" view may produce the same result in most cases. But the premises are different. In a nutshell, the "Nationalistic/Patriotic" view is that war necessary, but not good. The "Anti-Pacifist" will say (or think) that war is good, if not always necessary. Both of these views, of course, stand in stark contrast to that of the Pacifist, who says, and believes, that war is not good and never necessary.

So what is left? For this, we need to go to the Catholic Church, and explore the concept of "just war". The logic of the position is as follows: Even if many, or most, wars are unjustified, if there are wars that _are_ justified, we have to define the criteria by which they are, in fact, justified. And it has to be something more than the mere, crude, "because it's my country, right or wrong". It also has to be something besides, "any country that defines itself as a 'democracy' has a right to wage war on any country that does not", or vice-versa. Or even, "a country whose people subscribe to a religious creed has a right to wage war on a country that does not", for that reason alone -- or vice-versa, of course. In other words, forms of government and creeds are fine things, but they cannot, per se, ever constitute justification for waging war against "the other". Clearly, even less idealistic motives -- economic being most prominent -- are disallowed as well. Waging war to acquire land, food, trade routes, infrastructure, natural resources, stored wealth (think gold, silver, and jewels), room for an expanding population, slaves, women (well? It has occurred), a better view of the ocean -- these can all be dismissed on nearly-universal ethical and moral grounds. But then how about waging war in order to defend another country -- or society, or people, or racial/ethnic group -- that is being attacked, overrun, or persecuted? Let's leave that option open for the time being. And how about "preventive war"? Again, let's hold off. Well then, surely a defensive war is justified, right? If an enemy crosses your border with evil intent, it's time to fight back, and not only against the ones who have actually invaded, but against the forces that are posed to -- as well as the supply lines, infrastructure, and the resources and rulers of the country from which the attackers came. Right? Well, I would say, in general, this is correct. If we're attacked by Japan -- if they actually cross our borders and intentionally cause death and destruction, I would say it's OK to repel the attackers and also go after their fleet, communications infrastructure, coal and oil supplies, manufacturing capability, central government, and so on. Is it OK to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Please allow me to hold off on that one as well. (There is the very large issue of "collateral damage", which has become particularly acute in the period starting with World War II.)

The difference between "defense" and "offense" in war is, conceptually, quite simple. The core of "defense" is when you're defending your own, i.e. your own life, your home and hearth, your resources, lifestyle, health, wealth, and well-being _on your own territory_ or, arguably, in close proximity thereof. (Imagine a shore battery repelling an invading fleet -- yes, those shells might go as far as "international waters", but the purpose is no different from aiming at troops landing on the beach.) "Offense", on the other hand, is any invasion of, or use of, territory and resources _other than one's own_ in order to pursue military ends. Now, of course, ever since ancient times it has not been considered enough to simply sit in one's fortified castle and pour hot pitch on people scaling the walls. Offense grows out of defense. But at what point does offense become a project in its own right, i.e. when do we start "waging war" _without_ sufficient justification, even in cases where the cause was originally legitimate?

So far we have a lot of questions and very few answers. But now let's have a look at what the Church has to say. Yes, the Church -- an institution of peace -- has made it its business to define the circumstances under which it is proper to go to war. This is perfectly valid, because this way, if the circumstances don't justify war, then we have a moral obligation to keep the peace -- which is, after all, an important part of the Church's agenda. Much has been written on the concept of "just war", and an Internet search would undoubtedly yield up more commentaries than could be read in a lifetime. The most basic -- but current -- statement is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Please note the following. To begin with, the term "defense" is used in lieu of "war". The paragraph is part of a larger section entitled, "Avoiding war", which is part of the section, "Safeguarding Peace". So the emphasis is already on peace as the baseline, and war as the exception (catch the average American History course having _that_ point of view!). Then we have the phrase, "rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy", which is the equivalent of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" -- considered a perfectly honorable criterion in legal circles, but something limp-wristed and quaint when it comes to waging war. Then consider this: "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain". Juxtapose this, if you will, with the invasion of Iraq. Was the damage inflicted by Saddam Hussein on the nation (i.e., the U.S.) or the community of nations (? -- probably Israel) "lasting, grave, and certain"? Well, it could hardly have been "lasting and grave" because it hadn't happened yet. And as to its certainty, this was, of course, at the heart of President Bush's rationale. Was Iraq "certain" to inflict grave and lasting damage on the U.S.? This hinges on the existence of not only the ballyhooed "WMDs" but on their alleged ease of deployment. Were Saddam and his rocket scientists really clever enough to slap an ICBM down on Central Park? Hell, they couldn't even blow up anything bigger than a felafel stand in Tel Aviv with a Scud. So -- "certain"? Not really.

Then we have, "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective". Now, "putting an end to it" hinges on the validity of the previous criterion, which has already been shown to be nonexistent. But for the sake of argument, let's say that there was a real threat there. Did "all other means" include denying medical supplies and other essentials to the people of Iraq for the entire period since the Gulf War? Not only is that twisted and inhumane, it simply doesn't work -- any more than the "longest-standing boycott of all time", namely our boycott of Cuba, has worked. (Unless, by "working", you mean "having shown the U.S. and its government to be a flaming ass".) (And damn, how I would love to get hold of a Habana "Romeo y Julieta" without having to run up to Toronto.) In short, we tried "all other means" in a flip and desultory manner, declared them ineffective right away, and proceeded to war.

"There must be serious prospects of success." Think, "shock and awe", "cakewalk", and all the other comforting words and phrases uttered by the Neocons as this thing was getting off the ground. Then think about where we are today, five years in. And then think about reports like the National Intelligence Estimate, which make it quite clear that we _always knew_ we were headed for disaster, but for whatever godforsaken reason, we pressed on. I should pause here in order to point out one of this country's deepest and oldest flaws, when dealing with the rest of the world. There is a premise -- usually unspoken, but not always -- that the U.S. is really the only nation that "counts" -- that we represent progress, and the future, and all that is good -- and that everyone else is either primitive, or old-fashioned, or decadent, or apathetic, or evil, or... "whatever". I believe that it is this American strutting attitude of superiority in the face of much more ancient, and venerable, cultures that is at the heart of much of the hostility we receive today. It's not just what we do -- it's what we say, and think, while we're doing it that irritates and infuriates people elsewhere on earth. Even an unabashed waging of war for the most base, primitive reasons might be preferable to our vaunted idealism. (Recall that repelling an invasion by the Nazis was no easy task -- but it was made a bit easier by the dose of "Popeye spinach" in reaction to their constant blather about being the "master race". Being conquered by a worthy opponent is one thing. Being conquered by people who preach some form of manifest destiny is an entirely different matter.)

Moving on. "The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." Well, OK. But hey, we didn't destroy _all_ of Baghdad, just enough to insure that Halliburton would have to be given a multi-billion dollar contract to rebuild it (not to mention the "Green Zone", which covers more acreage than some entire countries). And what patriotic Iraqi wouldn't want their entire infrastructure trashed, if only they could get the Hussein family out of their face? And who cares, after all, about the Christians who have been living in Iraq since New Testament times, who now have to leave? And who cares that Iraq now sits, like a beached whale, in the midst of its enemies, who waste no time moving in to cut their share off the dead and decaying corpse?

So we see that, of the four conditions provided under the just war doctrine, the invasion and occupation of Iraq _fails on all four_, and fails not just in minor details, but in its entirety. But of course we have already dispensed with the notion that the _true_ motives for the invasion and occupation had anything to do with "just war"; this is just a way of mopping up the moral battlefield.

But! -- someone will argue -- it is all well and good to point these things out in retrospect, but could the same arguments have been made at the time? To respond to this, I would point out that each new revelation concerning what we knew, and when we knew it, implies that the _government_ knew better at the time of the invasion, even if the American people didn't. And this point did, indeed, become an occasion for contention even within the Catholic Church, and even within its conservative component, at the time. The -- perhaps Neocon-influenced -- point of view was that the government was not telling us all it knew (for legitimate reasons of security), and besides, we trust our leaders not to get us into another quagmire, and to, basically, "do the right thing". Well, they were right in that the government was, indeed, not telling us all it knew, because if it had, it would have been obvious to one and all that the invasion was initiated under completely false premises. But this illustrates how complicated the question has become. Take another look at the paragraph from the Catechism. "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Yeah -- that means you, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. And Congress! -- who went along with it like cows longing to be milked. Only a few brave souls -- like Ron Paul -- said, "Hell no!" And, "prove it!". So, the application of the "just war doctrine" falls squarely on our leaders, _not_ on the citizens. But the citizens are not off the hook, since they are expected -- and morally obligated -- to elect leaders who _respect_ the just war doctrine, along with other moral guidelines. So, in a sense, the failure of our leaders reflects poorly on the voters -- but it also reflects poorly on the system, which only gives us a very narrow range of options as to who to vote for (see previous post, "Our Most Noble Institution").

But to continue with the "if we had known then what we know now" argument -- was it obvious, at that point, that all other options had been exhausted (even assuming a just cause otherwise)? Well, my opinion is that the answer is no, even though in saying that I find myself agreeing with the French. And besides, are we currently waging war on any _other_ country that has tried our patience of late? Think: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, et al. The answer -- no. We are long-suffering and noble... turning the other cheek... appealing to the U.N.... not boycotting the Olympics... and so on. But in Iraq's case it was, "You bite your thumb at me, sirrah! For this you must die!"

Well, then, how about "serious prospects of success"? Our troops were supposed to be greeted with palm fronds and rose petals -- native women would be dancing in the streets with tambourines -- the oil pipelines would have been strewn with garlands and the controls turned over to Halliburton (them again!). Now, any sane person who knew more about the Near East than they might have learned by hearing a rendition of "The Sheik of Araby" would have known _much_ better than that. But delusion is a powerful thing, especially when it strikes heads of state.

OK, OK, but surely it was not a foregone conclusion that the use of arms would produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. Right? Except that Saddam had been sitting on a hotbed of sectarian hatreds and rivalries not unlike those of Yugoslavia under Tito's rule -- or the Soviet Union under Stalin's. Say what you like about tyrants, they do have a way of enforcing their own version of peace. "It's my way or"... not the highway, more like the guillotine. Once again, anyone who had the slightest grasp of Near East history would have known this, and known that all we had to do was knock the lid off, and the entire pot would proceed to boil over, which, sure enough, it has. And it wouldn't have taken a hyperactive imagination to see that adjacent Islamic states would take the opportunity to pile on -- to not only take sides in an Iraqi civil conflict, but use Iraq as a killing ground for U.S. troops (and U.S. imperialist ambitions), and the war as an excuse for more mischief elsewhere in the region, if not the world. Even the Kurds -- downtrodden as they are -- could turn into a kind of tar baby, the same way that the Kosovars have, and that any number of other small, insurgent groups would like to do.

No, really, I'm sorry -- but it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. And it's clear that even the administration has given up on making sensible arguments for our continued involvement in the Near East. All their pronouncements of late have been indistinguishable from those of a mental patient with paranoia and delusions of grandeur. But as I have indicated, at the outset many, even within the Catholic Church -- and I include priests who are the very soul of virtue -- mistook our leaders for sane and honest people, and thus concluded that the invasion of Iraq, contrary to all evidence, did, in fact, meet the criteria for a just war. And it has been a bit of work to dissuade them from this premise, even though all we have learned in the meantime adds weight to just one side of the scale. Because, of course, even priests, once committed to a certain point of view on secular matters, have a hard time changing it, and particularly making a 180-degree turn. And -- more tragically, in my opinion -- so many exemplary Catholic families have no problem, even to this day, sending their sons off to fight in this misbegotten conflict.

We can only hope and pray that the American Catholic Church will follow, more closely, the Vatican in its future pronouncements on the war. Ironically, the American church is almost always on the side of liberal dissent and rebellion against Vatican positions. This war is a striking -- but not totally surprising -- exception. There is still a considerable extent to which Catholic leaders in the U.S. feel obligated to defer to the Protestant, Puritan-heritage world view when it comes to foreign affairs, and even to domestic issues. Implication: You cannot be a "good citizen" and a good Catholic -- hard choices have to be made, and since we still are, in a sense, "strangers in a strange land" we oftimes have to "do as the Romans do" (no irony intended!) rather than assert what we know to be right. (This topic is fair game for a future post -- but not at present.)

[End of Part 3]