Iraq Special Intelligence Estimate

[john9001]

Originally posted by oboe

Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?

yes , they hung saddam.

[Hap]

Originally posted by oboe
Was hoping you'd pop in, Hap.   I think I found a link for Weigel's essay but it seems to be dated April 2006 - is it the same article?

Nope, a new one.  I just got "First Things" in the post yesterday.  I've not read the one to which you referred.

The just war considerations which Weigel lays out quite a bit in the intro of this recent essay and contextualizes it with references to two other authors, one a theologian and the other an historian, took a back seat for me to his explanation of the "wars," we've seen in Iraq since we invaded.

His take made things quite a bit clearer as I've tried to get my head around that knotted mess.  Thank God I don't watch TV news, so I've been largely spared the un-newsworthy superficiality of the chattering classes.  Adhominem arguments can raise a chuckle or a fury, but they get tiresome very quickly for me despite my own faux pas when I let one fly from the hip in here.

Petraus' is mentioned, and to be honest, I need to finish reading it.  Probably tonight after work.  Then give it another run through with pencil in hand.

There are several things I like about reading Weigel: his tone, he's not in a hurry, he's got a moral center that rests upon something besides what's fashionable, and he's thoughtful.  And, he makes me think and reflect as well.

Yeah, it's a new essay.  I'll try to dig out the old one, you try to dig out the new one.  Maybe you can get it off First Things website.  If not, call them and ask for a copy.  They'll probably send you one for free as a means to evaluate if you'd like to subscribe or not.  That's how I got my mine a couple years ago when I was looking for periodicals.

All the Best,

hap

p.s.  you provided the link.  I'll just save it and read it later.  Thanks!

[Toad]

Oboe,

I didn't read your entire link, however I think the author fails to take these principles one at a time and show where the Iraq war qualifies.

Note that a Just War has to qualify on each and every principle.

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4).

Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.

Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.

States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

How, in your opinion, does the Iraq war qualify with respect to principle 3 and 4? What injury had the US suffered at the hands of Iraq?

The only possible justification under 3 & 4 was that Iraq was an imminent threat WMD threat to the US. Had we found WMD, one could at least make that case; we found nothing. (And for those of you with short memory, that is exactly the position I took in the debates leading up to the war. I'm sure the posts are still available on this board.)

I personally don't feel that flouting UN sanctions qualifies under 3 & 4, although that seems to be the rationale the author of your link uses.

[Toad]

Originally posted by cpxxx


 You can name any number of precedents you like. The solution is always political.

Let's use Ireland as an example then.

What brought the IRA side to the table?

[oboe]

I agree with you, Toad.   The link I provided was merely an attempt to locate the article Hap had referenced.   I don't agree with the author's arguments.

I don't see how imminent threat can qualify as "wrong suffered".   How long did this country live under imminent threat from the Soviet Union without resorting to preemptive war?    I am sorry but I think the whole doctrine of preemptive war must be found to be unjust.

The question remains though, what is our duty as citizens when it becomes clear that our leaders have launched an unjust war?

[Toad]

In this Republic, it is up to your Congress to bring charges of impeachment against such a President.

However, the burden of proof would be on those bringing charges to show that he knowingly started an unjust war. I do not think that proof can be shown against Bush, at least not from seeing what has been offered as proof so far. Wishing doesn't make it so.

I will disagree with you, as you knew I would, with respect to imminent threat and just war.  In the days of Aquinas, Grotius, and Pufendorf the ability to destroy an entire country, indeed, an entire continent was not a matter of 15 minutes like it is now.

I think Ahmadinejad dances on the boundaries of giving Israel cause for a Just War with his speeches; couple that with Iranian nukes and Israel could at least make a case for it on the world stage.

[john9001]

Iraq invaded Kuwait and was driven out in what you people call gulf war one, that war was stopped in a cease fire with conditions agreed to by saddam, for 12 years saddam failed to honor the conditions of the crase fire he had agreed to.

what you people call gulf war two is a continuation of gulf war one.


now, tell me the gulf war was not justified.

[Toad]

The 4th and also next to last item in Just War Theory, john.

"Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. "

"States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered".

The injury suffered by Kuwait in GW1 had been adequately redressed/addressed. The Iraqis were out of Kuwait, Kuwait was restored to it's pre-GW1 boundaries and was well protected against a repeat performance by Iraq.

It was over.

[john9001]

know ye not the meaning of cease fire?

[Elfie]

I am sorry but I think the whole doctrine of preemptive war must be found to be unjust.

I dunno about that. In 1967 Israel launched a series of preemptive strikes because the Arabs were massing troops on the other side of Israel's borders. I think preemptive war can be *Just* in some cases.

[Toad]

Originally posted by john9001
know ye not the meaning of cease fire?

Yes, in fact I do.

You are quibbling that the various terms of the ceasefire were not all completely, exactly and explicity satisfied by Iraq.

Clearly, however, the invasion of Kuwait had been addressed and redressed.  Peace had been restored. There was no longer cause for war.

Further,

"The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered."

What violation of the ceasefire rules was proportional to the ensuing violence of GW2?  Clearly, there were none; once again, no cause for Just War.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Toad
Peace had been restored. There was no longer cause for war.
 

not accounting for the WMD's he had before the war, inhibiting the UN inspectors from inspections, attacking/killing the kurds and she-its with his airforce, then after the UN enacts the no-fly zones to protect them he shoots SAMs at the US aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.

yes"peace in our time".

[Vulcan]

...and then theres the money he was paying the families of suicide bombers. Terrorist training camps in northern iraq (oh yes I forgot saddam was 'unaware' of these).

I pity the USA, I think they did the right thing for once with Saddam. But it is now a hell of a mess over there.

[Toad]

Originally posted by john9001
not accounting for the WMD's he had before the war, inhibiting the UN inspectors from inspections, attacking/killing the kurds and she-its with his airforce, then after the UN enacts the no-fly zones to protect them he shoots SAMs at the US aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.

yes"peace in our time".

None of which rise to the level of cause under Just War Theory.

I'm sorry; the Sadman was scum floating on the gene pool of the world but the things you just listed do not justify an invasion of Iraq under Just War Theory.

Am I sorry to see him gone? Not in the least.

Do I think the US had the "right" to invade and depose him under Just War Theory? No, I do not.

Had they found WMD that presented an imminent threat to the US, it might have been barely justifiable. We found essentially nothing, despite a lot of looking.

Vulcan, the suicide bombers were targeted on Israel, were they not? If anything, that would have been a matter for Israel, not the US.

As for the terrorist camps, I believe they were there. To date no one in this administration has been able to prove, either before or after the fact, that these presented an imminent threat to the US. The camps were not the justification used for the invasion; WMD were. WMD are/were the issue that Just War hinges upon wrt the US.

That's the way I see it. I said as much on this BBS right before we jumped off. I did support the administration once the decision was made. Damn straight I wanted them to find WMD. It remains the only possible justification for the invasion. I hoped it would prove true so that we had some justification. It didn't turn out that way.

[oboe]

Why should Bush's state of mind enter in to it?   Whether he knowingly or unknowingly started this unjust war, he is responsible for it.   Last time I was pulled over for speeding, it did not matter to the officer that I did not intend to speed, or even that I did not know I was speeding.    I was guilty of speeding, period.

"Imminent threat" is not  specified in the Principles of Just War you included.   It really demands knowing the other's capability and intention in order to accurately assess the threat level.   As we have seen, the likelyhood of error is great.  

If the ability to destroy a country on short notice justifies the doctrine of preemptive war, you are implying that at any time during the Cold War either the US or USSR would have been justified in launching an attack, since each was mere minutes away from destruction at the hands of the other's nuclear arsenal.    I can't imagine that situation would've been considered a Just War.