history shows what it`s gonna take...

[gardenweasel]

an interesting exerpt from a great article...that`s a little to long to post....

""As a secondary priority, a proper fight against the enemy that attacked on 9/11 would have involved ending state sponsorship of terrorism by Arab states derivatively connected to Islamic Totalitarianism—states such as Syria (and, before it was ended, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq). These regimes are active supporters of Arab–Islamic terrorism and mouth support for the Islamic Totalitarian cause, but are not ideologically committed to it; these regimes support this cause out of political expediency. Supporting Islamic Totalitarianism gains power for them; by supporting anti-Western causes and jihadists, Arab states direct the misery of their people toward America and Israel and away from their own brutal rule. Supporting Islamic Totalitarianism also gains money for Arab states; for example, the leaders of Syria, a stagnant nation with no oil wealth, are wealthy because oil-rich Iran pays them for providing assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. Dealing effectively with these accessories to Islamic Totalitarianism would require, first and foremost, getting rid of the primary supporters of the movement. The next step would be, where necessary, making clear to these derivative regimes that any cooperation with that movement or its aims is not expedient, but a guarantee of their destruction.

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.

Observe what it took for the United States and the Allies to defeat Germany and Japan and thus win World War II. Before the Germans and Japanese surrendered, the Allies had firebombed every major Japanese city and bombed most German cities—killing hundreds of thousands. Explaining the ration*ale for the German bombings, Churchill wrote, “. . . the severe, the ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort . . . but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.” And as we well know, what ended the war—and the Nazi and Japanese Imperialist threat to this day—was America’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

The Civil War provides another stark example of what can be required to win a war. In 1864, as the war was dragging on in endless, bloody battle, the Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman helped end it with a devastating campaign against Georgia’s civilian population. After burning the city of Atlanta, Sherman’s army ravaged much of the rest of Georgia by burning estates; taking food and livestock; and destroying warehouses, crops, and railway lines. These actions had the effect not only of disrupting the supply of provisions to Lee’s army in Virginia, but also (and more importantly) of making the war real to the civilian population that was supporting the war from the rear. This, in turn, broke the spirit of the men on the front lines, who were now worried and demoralized by what was happening to their homes and families.

In both World War II and the Civil War, once massive defeats were handed to the enemy, the causes that drove the military threats were thoroughly defeated as political forces. There are no threatening Nazis or Japanese Imperialists today, nor was there any significant political force agitating for the reemergence of the Slave South after the Civil War.

To have decisively defeated Islamic Totalitarianism post-9/11, America would have had to both correctly identify the enemy and show the same unmitigated willingness to defeat its identified enemies as it has in past wars. In the weeks after 9/11, the American people, for their part, seemed willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent another 9/11. And throughout the Arab and Muslim world, many feared that they would be made to pay for the aggression of their nations. An expert on the Middle East reports that although 9/11 was greeted by much celebration by civilians in the Muslim world, many feared “that an angry America might crush them. . . . Palestinian warlords referred to the events as Al Nakhba—‘the disaster’—and from Gaza to Baghdad the order spread that victory parties must be out of sight of cameras and that any inflammatory footage must be seized.”3 But the fear of our enemies in the Middle East quickly disappeared once it became clear that few, if any, of them would pay for the atrocities of 9/11.

Observe that nearly five years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11—longer than it took to defeat the far more powerful Japanese after Pearl Harbor—the two leading supporters of Islamic Totalitarianism and the majority of their accessories remain intact and visibly operative. Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, led by a President who declares that our ally Israel must be “wiped off the map,” and by Mullahs who lead the nation in weekly chants of “Death to America.” Abroad, Iran’s terrorist agents kill American troops in Iraq, while its propagandists attempt to push Iraq into an Islamic theocracy. Saudi Arabia continues to fund schools and institutions around the world that preach hatred of America and advocate Islamic Totalitarianism. Syria remains the headquarters of numerous terrorist organizations and an active supporter of the Iraqi insurgency that is killing American troops. The Palestinian Authority continues a terrorist jihad initiated by Yasser Arafat—a jihad that can be expected only to escalate under the entity’s new leadership by the Islamic Totalitarian group Hamas. Throughout the Arab–Islamic world, “spiritual leaders” and state-owned presses ceaselessly incite attacks against the West without fear of reprisal.

America has done nothing to end the threat posed by Iran and Saudi Arabia, nor by Syria and the Palestinian Authority. In the rare cases that it has taken any action toward these regimes, its action has been some form of appeasement: extending them invitations to join an “anti-terrorism” coalition (while excluding Israel); responding to the Palestinians’ jihad with a promised Palestinian State; declaring “eternal friendship” with Saudi Arabia and inviting its leaders to vacation with our President; responding to Iran’s active pursuit of nuclear weapons with the “threat” of possible, eventual, inspections by the U.N.

Of course, America has done something militarily in response to 9/11; it has taken military action against two regimes: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But in addition to these not having been the two most important regimes to target, our military campaigns in each case have drastically departed from the successful wars of the past in their logic, aims, methods—and in their results. In Afghanistan, we gave the Taliban advance notice of military action, refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties, and allowed many key leaders to escape in the Battle of Tora Borah. And in Iraq, we have done far worse. While we have taken Saddam Hussein out of power, we have neither eradicated the remnants of his Baathist regime, nor defeated the insurgency that has arisen, nor taken any serious precaution against the rise of a Shiite theocracy that would be a far more effective abettor of Islamic Totalitarianism than Saddam Hussein ever was.

In terms of ending the (limited) threat posed to America by the respective countries, the “war” in Afghanistan was a partial failure, and the “war” in Iraq is a total failure. Our leadership, however, evaluates these endeavors not primarily in terms of whether they end threats and dissuade other hostile regimes from continuing aggression, but in terms of whether they bestow the “good life” on the Middle Eastern peoples by ridding them of unpopular dictators and allowing them to vote-in whatever government they choose (no matter how anti-American). This objective is presently consuming endless resources and thousands of American lives in Iraq, where we are sustaining a hostile Iraqi population until they can independently run their new nation—in which Islam is constitutionally the basic law of the land.

How is all of this supposed to fulfill our leaders’ pledge to defend America? The democratically elected Iraqi government, we are told, will somehow lead to a renaissance of “freedom” in the Middle East, which will somehow stop terrorism in some distant future. In the meantime, we are told, we should show “resolve,” take off our shoes at the airport, and pay attention to the color-coded terror alerts so we can know how likely we are to be slaughtered.

Empty talk of “complete victory” notwithstanding, our official foreign policy regarding America’s security against Islamic terrorism is: accepted defeat. We have not been willing to take military action against the most important threats against us, and the type of military action we have been willing to take has not succeeded in making us safer. And most disturbing of all, despite our travesty of a foreign policy, the vast majority of once-enraged Americans has not demanded anything better. Most Americans acknowledge that Iraq is a debacle, that we will not be safe anytime soon, and that we have no plans to deal effectively with threats such as Iran’s nuclear weapons program—yet there is widespread resignation that this is the best we can do. This—in response to a threat caused by pip-squeak nations, against the most powerful military in history.

 

[gardenweasel]

Why? What explains the defeatism of the leaders and citizens of the most powerful nation on earth?

One crucial factor is the failure of our intellectual and political leadership to clearly identify the nature of our enemy, to recognize that terrorism stems from a religious ideological movement that seeks our destruction and that that movement is widely supported by Muslim peoples and states.

One intellectual motivation for this evasion is the doctrine of Multiculturalism, which holds that all cultures are equal, and thus that it is immoral for Western Culture to declare itself superior to any other. Having swallowed this doctrine, most of our intellectuals and politicians are reluctant to identify a clearly evil, militant ideological movement as an aspect of Arab–Islamic culture or to acknowledge its widespread support in that culture.

An even more significant motivation is the religiosity of many Americans (especially conservatives). While the militant methods of Islamic Totalitarianism are anathema to religious Americans, the ethical prescriptions of the movement—a life of faith, material renunciation, and sacrifice for a “higher” cause—are consistent with everything religious Americans hold as ideal. These Americans are thus reluctant to indict such ideas as the cause of a massive evil and, instead, are drawn to the theory that our enemy is confined to isolated individuals such as Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and a few crazy followers. Our leaders go even further; not only are they reluctant to indict Islamic ideas, they bend over backward to claim that no truly Islamic movement can be responsible for terrorism because “Islam is peace.” Islamic terrorists, they claim, have “hijacked a great religion.”

America’s intellectual failure to identify the nature of the enemy is a major cause of its defeatism—but this failure, and its responsibility for our policies, only goes so far. For example, none of our politicians identify our enemy as “Islamic Totalitarianism”; however, they all know and admit that Iran and Syria are active sponsors of terrorism, that Iran is developing missiles and a nuclear weapon, that Saudi Arabia turns out legions of wannabe terrorists, and many other facts pointing to the conclusion that if we are to be safe, these states must be stopped. Shortly after 9/11, President Bush demonstrated some understanding of the role of state support of terrorism when he declared: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” Recently, despite his misgivings about indicting any variant of any religion, he has been condemning “Islamic Radicalism” as a major source of the terrorist threat.

If America were to take military action to end the threats we face, even based on our leaders’ limited understanding of these threats, it would be far more significant and effective than what we have done so far. Why, then, haven’t our leaders taken such actions?

The reason is that, despite their claims that they will do whatever is necessary to defend America, our leaders believe that it would be wrong—morally wrong—to do so. They believe this because they consistently accept a certain moral theory of war—one that has come to be universally taught in our universities and war colleges. This theory is accepted, at least implicitly, not only by intellectuals, but by our politicians, the leadership of our military, and the media. And while the American people are not explicitly familiar with this theory, they regard the precepts on which it is based and the policies to which it leads as morally uncontroversial. The theory is called Just War Theory. To understand today’s disastrous policies, and to reverse them, it is essential to understand what this theory holds.

 

[gardenweasel]

Just War Theory”
Consider the following passage from the book Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer:

A soldier must take careful aim at his military target and away from nonmilitary targets. He can only shoot if he has a reasonably clear shot; he can only attack if a direct attack is possible . . . he cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies. . . . Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is too easy. . . . What we look for . . . is some sign of a positive commitment to save civilian lives. . . . if saving civilian lives means risking soldiers’ lives the risk must be accepted.4
Walzer’s prescriptions are not the idle musings of an ivory tower philosopher; they are exactly the sort of “rules of engagement” under which U.S. soldiers are fighting—and dying—overseas. When our marines in Baghdad do not shoot back when fired upon from a mosque, or when our helicopter pilots are shot down while flying too low in an attempt to avoid civilian casualties while in pursuit of their targets, they are following the dictum that we should show a “positive commitment to save civilian lives” even if this entails “risking soldiers’ lives.”

Just and Unjust Wars serves as the major textbook in the ethics classes taught at West Point and dozens of others colleges and military schools. More broadly, Just War Theory—for which Just and Unjust Wars is the most popular modern text—is the sole moral theory of war taught today.

Just War Theory is conventionally advocated in contrast to two other views of the morality of war: pacifism and “realism.” Pacifism holds that the use of military force is never moral. Just War theorists correctly criticize this view on the grounds that evil aggressors exist who seek to kill and dominate the innocent, and that force is often the only effective way to stop them. War, they hold, is therefore sometimes morally necessary.

“Realism” is the view that war has no moral limitations. Just War Theory rejects this theory as well, holding that war, when necessary, must be conducted in accordance with strict moral principles. Since “realism” renounces morality, Just War theorists observe, its advocates cannot in principle oppose wars or acts of war in which the guilty unjustly kill the innocent. More broadly, Just War theorists argue, “realism” is deficient because it denies the need to think carefully about the moral issues raised by war. Given that, in wartime, thousands or millions of lives hang in the balance—given that war is a major undertaking with the potential to do massive good or massive evil—we are obligated to consider the important, and non-obvious, moral questions that war raises. These questions include: Under what circumstances should a nation go to war? And: What should a nation’s policies be toward the soldiers and civilians of enemy nations?

These questions, Just War theorists argue, must be thought about systematically, in advance of any particular war, so that we can do the right thing when the circumstances arise. These are not questions to be answered by the seat of our President’s pants, in response to the international or domestic whim of the moment. To act in such a way, they say, would be an injustice to all those who are sent to war, and especially to those whose lives are ended because of it.

All of these arguments against pacifism and “realism”—and for systematic analysis of the morality of war—are valid. They lend credence to the claim that Just War Theory is a practical and moral theory of war. But an investigation of Just War Theory—and its consistent practice in our so-called “War on Terrorism”—demonstrates that it is neither practical nor moral. To the extent that Just War Theory is followed, it is a prescription for suicide for innocent nations, and thus a profoundly unjust code.

 

[gardenweasel]

All forms of Just War Theory provide guidelines that fall into two categories: justice in entering a war, and justice in waging a war. (These two categories are known as jus ad bellum, and jus in bello, respectively.) Broadly speaking, Just War Theory holds that a nation can go to war only in response to the impetus of a “just cause,” with force as a “last resort,” after all other non-military options have been considered and tried—with its decision to go to war motivated by “good intentions,” with the aim of bringing about a “good outcome.” And it holds that a nation must wage war only by means that are “proportional” to the ends it seeks, and while practicing “discrimination” between combatants and non-combatants. Finally, in a requirement that applies to both categories, Just War Theory holds that the decision-making power for when, why, and how to wage war—including the declaration of war—must rest with a “legitimate authority.”

By themselves, these guidelines—“good intentions,” “just cause,” “last resort,” “proportionality,” “discrimination,” and “legitimate authority”—are highly ambiguous. Their meaning and interpretation depend on the view of the “just,” the “good,” and the “legitimate” presupposed by Just War Theory—that is, the theory’s basic view of morality. Although advocates of Just War Theory differ on many specifics about the nature of morality, they all hold one fundamental idea in common. To zero in on this idea, let us turn to the origins of Just War Theory: the writings of the Christian theologian Saint Augustine on the proper use of violence by individuals.

In his work, Augustine asked whether a Christian can ever justify killing another, given the Biblical imperative to “turn the other cheek.” Augustine’s answer was this: One can use force, not to protect oneself, but to protect one’s neighbor. As the scholar Jean Elshtain, author of the highly regarded book Just War Against Terror, explains:

For early Christians like Augustine, killing to defend oneself alone was not enjoined: It is better to suffer harm than to inflict it. But the obligation of charity obliges one to move in another direction: To save the lives of others, it may be necessary to imperil and even take the lives of their tormenters.5
Thus, according to Augustine, if only you are attacked, you are obligated to turn the other cheek and die, because personal self-defense is immoral; only if someone attacks your neighbor’s cheek are you permitted to retaliate.

Augustine’s theory is not about justice in the sense of the innocent defending their lives against the guilty. In Augustine’s view, the guiding purpose and standard for the just use of force by individuals—trumping guilt or innocence—is that it must be an act of selfless service to others.

All of this boils down to this: One’s life is not an end in itself, to be defended righteously for its own sake—but a means to some “higher” end, to be sacrificed or preserved as is required by one’s moral duty to serve others. This is a perfectly consistent expression of the present-day morality of altruism.

“Altruism” literally means “other-ism”; it holds that one should live one’s life in selfless service to the needs of others, with sacrifice for their sake as the highest virtue. To act for one’s own sake, according to altruism, is immoral (or, at best, amoral). The morality of altruism is descended from Christianity but is accepted today in various forms by both the religious and the non-religious. While consistent adherence to altruism is widely recognized as impractical, altruism is nevertheless almost universally upheld as the moral ideal, and almost never challenged. Observe that while few seek to live a Mother Theresa-like life, no one questions that her life was a moral archetype.

Augustine did not write systematically about the application to war of his altruistic, Christian views on the use of violence, though he did apply these views to strongly endorse the practice of fighting wars to relieve suffering and spread Christianity to other nations. After Augustine, other Christian theologians greatly expanded Just War Theory (as it later came to be known). Eventually, it was developed by both religious and secular philosophers, and adopted in various forms by groups as disparate as Christians and atheists, by self-proclaimed “hawks” and borderline pacifists, by moral absolutists and moral relativists. The most significant development in Just War Theory since Augustine’s time is that the theory has come to include an endorsement of what it calls a “right to self-defense.” But because Just War Theory has maintained its Augustinian, altruistic roots, its alleged “right” to self-defense turns out to be no such thing.

Let us explore in detail the meaning and consequences of the guidelines of Just War Theory, focusing on their employment in America’s “War on Terrorism.” Consider first the requirement that a nation go to war only in response to a “just cause.” What constitutes a “just cause” for war? The classic “just cause” that led Augustine to sanction war, and that Just War theorists have endorsed ever since, is a “humanitarian crisis”: a situation in which a foreign people is suffering from aggression or oppression or genocide. Walzer goes so far as to say that “ . . . the chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from outside.”6 Many Just War theorists hold that the sacrifice of American soldiers and American wealth for “peacekeeping” and “humanitarian” missions (where no threat to the U.S. is at stake)—such as in Sudan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia—is morally mandatory.

Where in such “just causes” is the justice for the innocent, hardworking individuals who are forced to fund this “humanitarianism,” let alone for those who die in such missions? The “justice” is to be found in Just War Theory’s standard of justice: the altruistic notion that justice means selfless service to the needs of others. In practice this means that the world’s “haves” (the productive, the virtuous, the happy) are to sacrifice for the sake of the world’s “have-nots.” American soldiers, in this view, should not fight for themselves and their freedom; they should fight to serve anyone who needs them.

Given that Just War Theory regards individuals, not as ends in themselves, but as means to the ends of others, what is its view of the right to self-defense, that is, the right of a people to defend its own lives and freedom, not for the sake of a “humanitarian” cause, but for its own sake?

 

[gardenweasel]

While in name Just War Theory claims to uphold a right to self-defense, in substance it denies this right. Self-defense, the theory holds, is a “just cause” for war. This means that if the people of a nation are suffering aggression, oppression, or genocide, and are themselves capable of stopping it, they are morally entitled to respond militarily. But—and this is the crucial part—only under strict conditions. Aggression from another nation is a “just cause,” according to Just War Theory, but only as a “last resort”—and only if the decision to go to war is motivated by “good intentions.” (These qualifications apply to “humanitarian” “just causes” as well, but we will focus on their application to alleged wars of self-defense.)

Let us first examine the requirement that war must be a “last resort.” This restriction is often portrayed as a sensible policy that simply entails taking the act of going to war seriously, rather than going to war willy-nilly. But, in fact, war as a “last resort” goes far beyond forbidding wars of whim or aggression; it means that a nation cannot go to war immediately even when there is an objective threat—that is, when another nation has shown the willingness to initiate aggression against it. Because the use of military force involves the harming of others, Just War Theory holds, every other conceivable avenue short of using military force must be tried: appeasement, U.N. resolutions, being persuaded by the crocodile tears of enemy leaders, and anything else that pacifists (or U.N. ambassadors) can muster.

What is an innocent nation to do when it knows of a threat that, if left unaddressed, could result in a catastrophic attack on it at some point in the future—such as the knowledge possessed by the U.S. of Iran, a nation that sponsors terrorism, spreads Islamic Totalitarianism, develops nuclear weapons, has attacked U.S. interests in the past, and promises the eventual destruction of America? Such projections are dismissed by Just War theorists as merely hypothetical (“How can we know what the future will hold?”). Projections of future attacks, they hold, are tainted by self-serving motives—that is, too much concern for one’s own life and liberty, too little concern with the consequences of war on others (such as the Iranians)—and thus morally out of the question as a cause for action. For example, in 2002, Walzer told the New York Times: “we don’t have to wait to be attacked; that’s true. But you do have to wait until you are about to be attacked.”7

The requirement that war be a “last resort” is inimical to the requirements of self-defense, which demand that serious threats be stopped as soon as possible. Observe that evil nations and movements do not commit major atrocities out of the blue; they need time to build their forces, gain converts, extract concessions, and win small victories; they need to convince themselves and their followers that they have a chance of success. The earlier their intended victims retaliate, the less damage the thugs can do, and the easier it is to dispose of them.

Consider Germany in the 1930s. Hitler, who had stated publicly his intentions for domination of Europe and the world, was an objective threat to his neighbors. He was a threat as soon as he came to power, and then increasingly so as he built up a military, explicitly rejecting existing treaties with England and France. Yet these nations took no military action against his regime. Then Germany annexed Austria, and was met with no military response. When Nazi troops occupied the Rhineland (a disputed area on the border with France), they were given a pass. When Hitler asked the European leaders to hand him the free state of Czechoslovakia, they did. It took the invasion of Poland to prompt the European nations to take military action against the Nazis. They practiced war as a “last resort”; and we know the result.

Or consider the rise of Islamic Totalitarianism. In 1979, a new Iranian regime founded on Islamic Totalitarian principles held fifty-two Americans hostage for four hundred and forty-four days, while America helplessly begged for their return and Iranian leaders had a world stage to proclaim their superiority to the nation they call the “Great Satan.” Not one American died during the hostage-taking—but, with America on her knees, the burgeoning anti-American movement achieved a crucial victory.

What would Just War Theory say about whether this situation warranted a military response? Did it rise to the level of a direct attack sufficient to place us at the point of “last resort” with Iran and other nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism? Not according to Jimmy Carter. What about after two hundred and forty-three marines were killed in Lebanon in 1983? Not according to Ronald Reagan. Or after Khomeini’s fatwa offered terrorists a bounty to destroy writer Salman Rushdie and his American publisher for expressing an “un-Islamic” viewpoint in 1989? Not according to George Bush, Sr. Or after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? Not according to Bill Clinton. The pattern is telling.

 

[gardenweasel]

Since there is no definable threshold at which to declare something a “last resort,” the threshold tends to default to some kind of a range-of-the-moment, perceptual-level event, such as a massive, direct attack by an enemy nation (e.g., 9/11). Until then, Just War theorists and their pacifist spiritual brothers can always concoct new schemes for appeasement, or new fantasies that the enemy has reformed, or new rationalizations that their aggression is our fault—and thus claim that to wage war would be immoral. By the time war becomes a “last resort,” an innocent nation has endured far more risk, fear, and destruction than was necessary—and will have to endure far more in order to defeat a long-appeased and thus more powerful enemy. “Self-defense” as a “last resort” is not self-defense.

Further undermining the self-defense of an innocent nation is the requirement of Just War Theory that the decision to go to war be motivated by “good intentions”— that is, seeking a “good outcome.” This requirement, by naming the motive and purpose of war, goes to the heart of what Just War Theory means and demands.

What does “good” mean here? It means “altruistic.”

According to Just War Theory, it is wrong for a nation to be exclusively concerned with its own well-being in deciding whether to go to war; it must demonstrate concern for the well-being of the world as a whole—including the well-being of the nation it is attacking. Only such a concern will yield a “good outcome”—that is, an altruistic outcome.

Insofar as it constitutes “good intentions” for any part of a mission to be devoted to a nation’s own defense, it is justified as altruistic: by the “sacrifices” that leaders and especially soldiers make to “serve their country”—a country that is defended as an altruistic one. For example, when President Bush discusses why America is a country worth defending, he emphasizes our charity, our service to other nations, the religiosity of many Americans, and so on. He does not emphasize the fact that we devote our lives to making money and pursuing happiness.

In implementing Just War Theory, the less a nation is concerned with the well-being of its own citizens, and the more it is concerned with that of others, the more it proves its “good intentions.” The more it seems to be going to war for the sake of its own citizens, the more suspect its motives. Observe this at work in the two wars our government has entered since 9/11: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The impetus for both wars, especially in Afghanistan, was clearly the events of September 11 and the realization of the extent of the terrorist threat to America. But observe that while President Bush said that America has a right to defend itself, he did not consider the elimination of the threat posed by these countries to be a sufficient justification for war in either case. In both wars, he defended his actions, not just as a response to the threat of terrorists to America, but as a response to their threat to the “world.” Bush supplemented the alleged self-defense portions of each mission with massive campaigns to relieve Afghan and Iraqi suffering—suffering that constituted uncontroversially “just causes.” And in the case of the war in Iraq, he made a crucial component of his justification the goal of preserving the “integrity” of the U.N. (an organization whose myriad dictators are committed opponents of American interests), whose resolutions Saddam had violated.

In the buildup to the war in Iraq, President Bush was especially concerned with giving the mission an altruistic purpose. He sought to justify the self-defense aspect of the war on the grounds of preemption, an idea controversial among commentators, politicians, and Just War theorists. Thus, President Bush made sure to focus, above all, on the goal of freeing the Iraqi people of a tyrant and showering them with food, collectively owned oil, and “democracy.” The name of the war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” perfectly reflects Bush’s moral priorities.

As an expert who is sympathetic to Just War Theory wrote in the Claremont Review of Books:

In the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, to have listened to President Bush, or to his principal civilian and military advisors, was to learn how profoundly just-war thinking has influenced the leadership of the world’s most powerful nation. One may of course disagree with their conclusions, but one has to be impressed by the evident care they took to provide moral justification for their actions. Measured by any objective standard, Operation Iraqi Freedom plausibly met all the criteria for just war . . . a serious, good faith effort was made to subject American policy to rigorous moral scrutiny.8
Whenever President Bush wants to defend the morality of the wars we have fought, he insists that we fight for reasons “larger than our nation’s defense.” When Bush refers to our “good intentions” in Iraq, as he frequently does, he speaks not of our intention to defend ourselves, but of the intentions of American citizens to pay and of American soldiers to die so that Iraqis can hold a mob vote.

An injunction to go to war with altruistic intentions, seeking an altruistic outcome, is in direct contradiction to the requirements of self-defense; it forbids the very essence of self-defense in the context of war: identifying and defeating enemy nations.

To identify a nation as an enemy is to recognize it as a committed initiator of force that threatens one’s own life, that forfeits its right to exist, and that in justice deserves whatever is necessary to end the threat it poses. By Just War Theory’s moral standards, however, there is no such thing as an enemy nation. Even when a nation initiates aggression, it is not regarded as the proper object of retaliation, but as a haven of “others” to be served. (This notion is, unsurprisingly, rooted in Augustine’s religion, Christianity, which countenances us to love everyone—especially, as proof of extreme virtue, to “love thine enemy.”)

 

[gardenweasel]

jack`s gonna get pissed off...a great article...to read the rest...if anyone has any eyes left....


http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

GW In a nutshell --only way to fight terror is with equal or greater force---and having media-politicians-protestors- trying to protect terrorist rights and dissing our military and leaders at every opp is NOT the road.

 

[MadJack]

jack`s gonna get pissed off...a great article...to read the rest...if anyone has any eyes left....


http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp

i wont get pissed.

where can i buy the book so i can lay down and read it

 

[selkirk]

GW though I agree with many points of the article, disagree with the very first part (only read what was posted here).

though it was important to defeat the sides completely ie. japan germany believe it is wrong to say that the bombing of cities broke their will.

in the case of Japan it would have cost millions of lives so the US decided to drop the bomb (twice) and end the war quickly.

the civilian bombing in most cases does not work. though the writer uses the example of the british bombing German cities. he leaves out one important factor.

When Germany invaded and quickly defeated France. Britain was in a case of crisis. there armies were badly defeated in Europe and Asia.

Britain faced an invasion. and only had a strong navy left. The Germans were superior in the air. they bombed air bases. and some naval targets.

however it was decided to bomb London and other cities in Britain. this was a disaster. first it gave the british air force time to regroup. they were no longer facing constant german air attacks.

the people grew more determined to fight than ever before, support for Churchill grew and his government which before the London bombing was in threat of crumbling.

Also the US which was neutral, happy selling arms to both sides, were shocked with the pictures of the war. and came in one the side of Britain.

well first they decided to supply Britain and stop dealing with Germany. this was a huge blow.

if Germany just maintained attacking UK naval targets, and air bases they may have succeeded.

these regimes have not come back because they were crushed.

do not agree with the civil war analogy,...either. as at the end the south economy was destroyed, that civil war should have been over sooner, except (better Generals on the South at the Start) General Lee, and Jackson ect.

some good films

Nazis warning from history (documentary 6hr.)
Battle of the century (same group as the above, between Russia and GermanyWW2).

Paris 1919, great book, okay have not read it yet but have heard the author speak, and general great reviews.
about the peace treaty WW1 and how it effected WW2, middle east, vietnam, ect well everyone.


in closing good documentary on the Passionate Eye on Iraq (CBC newsworld).

the US forces had to pull out of certain places (political reasons, anyways the resistance has grown from almost nothing to tens of thousands.

and are very well funded....suggested Saudia Arabia backers...

interesting film..

do not visit this forum, but saw MJ post on the main page.

thanks
selkirk

 

[smurphy]

Interesting that Vietnam (which Iraq most resembles) was not mentioned at all.

Big omission in this massive article - no asking of the populace to sacrifice, volunterr for service etc. To me, this is the most important thing that we are missing if we truly want to back up our bravado with actual substance.

Where is the required rationaing of fuel which of course helps keep terrorist nations in business? Where is the call for increased military service? Where are the war bonds? Where is anything that would make us feel like we really are truly at war?

This stuff is missing because Iraq was a pre-emptive war. The country will only sacrifice it's comfort for a war that we didn't start. HISTORY has always shown that. With Afghanistan - I truly believe we had that momentum - that moral call to arms. People like Pat Tillman did not volunterr for Iraq - they volunteered to fight the 9-11 attackers. My criticism of Bush with Afghanistan is actually the opposite of Iraq. We should have gone quicker and much more overwhelming - and we should not have rested until we got Osama. It's innexcusable and an insult to our country that Bush let up in that mission. The government should have immediately asked us all to pitch in - It should have been treated like an actual war on all levels. There was no debate about Afghanistan, no controversy, and no need for trumped up bogus intel. It was clear and truly just. That was our war.

Iraq and Iran (if we strike first) WILL NOT be winnable. That's a fact. We have to be as diplomatic as possible, maintain our allies, get better intel, and be ready if something does happen. If they do anything to give us just cause, then we will win decisively - and treat it like an actual war - everyone must make sacrifices. But if we strike first, we will have already lost before it begins.

 

[gardenweasel]

sellkirk...i didn`t post this as the gospel truth.....it`s such a long article...it`s an opinion piece..an interesting read...

and involves so many different aspects of war...and i`m not going to debate the writer`s opinions item by item...

i don`t agree with every notion of the authors`...but i do agree with the basic premise..

i think,if it`s possible to synopsize something of this scope,in simple terms,i`d say that the writer`s are saying that you can`t fight wars in a half assed manner.......you can`t fight politically correct wars vs opponents...be they nation states,separatists,theocratic zealots....whomever...who`s objective is to kill you by any means possible...

smurphy mentioned viet nam..i`m not agreeing that viet nam was a smart war...or even justified....what i`m saying is that we didn`t fight it to win....which i think actually makes the writer`s case....it was the first politically correct war...with the media beating the drums of defeatism until the american will was broken...can you even imagine ww2 being covered by the leftwing, blame america first media ?....

i think the authors are trying to get our attention....

there are so many correlations to the build up to ww2,it`s staggering...

facism surfacing again....not nazi fascism...but something more virulent...islamofascism.....and it`s taking hold in europe..again...

anti-semitism running rampant...

europe...and many americans with their heads buried in the sand...not paying attention to what`s going on...across the globe..our own media avoiding the 9/11 attack like it was the plague...ignoring the flight 93 hero`s(until recently..i`m thankful that the tapesa are being made public).....ignoring the wtc 1993 bombings...the cole...the embassy bombings...and on and on...

anybody see a pattern?


i wish the media was more truthful...we need to know that people at the wtc were identified via dna when their femurs or skulls were found on the top of buildings 2 blocks away....we need to hear(with the family`s consent)the recordings of those innocent people,our friends and relatives, who were slaughtered by these monsters...female flight attendants begging"please don`t hurt me" ...and then the radical bastard saying,"it`s done,i finished her off"....

i remember churchill being called a madman when he warned of the nazi`s military build up..he was ignored and called a fool......much like the u.n. is doing with the middle east....and every other nuclear non-proliferation issue that it`s presented with...

this crap with the europeans calling america the greatest threat...while their own societies are wilting under their own socialism...multiculturalism...they`re losing their identites...their nationalism... disgusting.....


any brit(and i love the brits) who goes to normandy knows that they owe america more than they can ever repay.... the french and germans owe us even more..... they only have the freedom to have this opinion because we gave it to them.....

the europeans are already flexing their well-developed attitudes......a reflexive inclination to appease, a readiness to "understand" suicide bombers, a susceptibility to victim rhetoric from aggressors, and a desparate eagerness to applaud "the good side" of terrorist organizations like al qaeda,hamas & hezbollah........


people just ignoring ahmadinnerjacket`s blatant public threats to wipe israel....a democracy...and a fellow u.n. member state off the face of the earth....and proceeding to build and showcase his military arsenal...

i think we`re soft...we`re asleep..

this country is facing some major problems and we seem to have so many enemies, including some inside our own country such as our msm and those who want to use massive illegal immigration to usher in a socialist utopia......

there is something seriously wrong with all of this...history seems to be repeating itself.... there is something surreal when countries such as germany, and even some in our own country, feel that we are more of a threat to world peace than the mad mullahs in iran......

i honestly fear for the future of this country.....

 

[kosar]

GW In a nutshell --only way to fight terror is with equal or greater force---

Equal or greater force? We're blowing shit up with Apache's and they're placing homemade bombs alongside the road.

We're using predator drones to blow up 4 houses at a time. They're firing RPG's that rarely hit anything.

I asked in another thread and it naturally went unanswered. In this sort of a war, how would we 'step up' the force we use? Seriously, nuke the country? Destroy entire cities? Just level every last building in a 'problem' city? Even those absurd options would not work.

The media is not restraining this effort in any way. That's ridiculous.

In the sense that we're currently trying to frame this mission (accompished!), that is to install a peaceful, lasting democracy, it is not winnable.

We now have, or will have, a government of islamfascists straight out of the stone age that will align itself with Iran. Well, it really is *already* aligned with Iran.

Stop blaming the GD media and place the blame exactly where it belongs.

Smurphy,

Great post and well put. But I don't think this Iraq 'war' is that similar to Vietnam. As i've said many times, it is almost identical to when the USSR tried to do this same sort of thing in Afghanistan. It does not and will not work. Do we ever learn from history? Christ.

That ragtag band of gypsies repelled the big, bad USSR. And I really don't think MSNBC-Russia had much to do with it.

 

[selkirk]

GW there is nothing really to debate. the author and anyone else who believes you can win a war by bombing the hell out of the civilian population is wrong.

it is believed still that people will panic and be overcome by fear. it never happened in the US civil War, WW1, and WW2 on the Brithish, Russia, Germans sides.

in fact instead of panic they supported their governments more and the war effort, ie: Russia, Great Britain and in Germany near the end of the war.


do not disagree with most of your points however

any brit(and i love the brits) who goes to normandy knows that they owe america more than they can ever repay.... the french and germans owe us even more..... they only have the freedom to have this opinion because we gave it to them.....


no one gave the Brits anything. last time I checked the history books the UK and her allies stood alone against nazis Germany and were not defeated.

do believe the US played a vital role in the War. the biggest difference was the amount of supplies and arms that the US good produce. at the end of the day the country that could build the most planes, tanks, wins. in most cases.

as for Normandy though it was an important battle, the Germans were destined to lose the war before that event.

when they lost Stalingrad they lost the war.
by the way maybe we all owe a big thank you to the UK, if they folded quickly like France maybe world history would be much different today.

thanks
selkirk

 

[smurphy]

That ragtag band of gypsies repelled the big, bad USSR. And I really don't think MSNBC-Russia had much to do with it.

Indeed. The media scapegoat is ridiculous.

 

[smurphy]

as for Normandy though it was an important battle, the Germans were destined to lose the war before that event.

Thank you for your WW2 perspective. The US was a key PART of the allies. Unfortunately too many of us Americans have the belief that we single-handedly waltzed into Europe and destryed the enemy all by ourselves. This adversely affects our empty bravado today.

I agree Germany was destined for defeat by the time Normandy happened - it was a matter of time at that point. Germany was going to lose almost no matter what - they simply extended themselves too far. There's no way they could maintain their overreach. And when they began bombing English civilians, it sealed their fate.

 

[gardenweasel]

sellkirk....you don`t think that bombing civilian populations...and infrastructure.... are important aspects of winning war?....i think you are wrong....

and i think it`s even more true today than it was in the 40`s....

we can`t forget that hiroshima and nagasaki effectively ended ww2 for japan...were the japanese going to lose?......yes

..but,this civilian bombing probably saved hundreds of thousands of american and ally lives...

you don`t think that the bombing of the world trade center completely changed our country?....a supposedly small band of radical islamists have brought the greatest power on earth to it`s figurative knees...has crippled the airline industry....changed our lives forever...

they affectively changed the political make-up of spain and have basically forced them to capitulate to the terrorists.....

if you are saying that the bombing of germany...in reciprocation for the devastation of london wasn`t necessary...i don`t know what to say....

the author isn`t saying that bombing civilians is the be all and end all...it`s a part of the comprehensive battle plan....


as far as britain is concerned,i`m glad that you brought up the fact that america kept britain from folding by being their industrial backbone...

at dunkirk alone...after france did their early fold,the british loss of weponry and equipment(not to mention 30,000 men)was a major disaster............britain lost six destroyers, twenty-four small craft, and 24,000 tons of merchant shipping......france lost seven destroyers and one supply ship......

britain was very brave.....again,i do love the brits...unlike the french......but to say that they were fine if the u.s. hadn`t basically bankrolled them...and then entered the war...is incorrect.....

""After nearly conquering all of Europe and conquering half of Russia by late 1941, Nazi Germany was now faced with a counterattack. The United States quickly entered the war against Germany after declaring war against Japan in December 1941. Because its industry and economy were not damaged by the war, the United States quickly became the "arsenal of democracy," providing arms and supplies to Britain and Russia in their desperate efforts to keep the Germans from conquering them and all of Europe. By 1942, the United States, Britain, and Russia were allies, working together to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese."""

don`t undercut the fact that without us,it`s very possible that the allies lose the war..that and the fact that luckily for britain,neville chamberlain resigned in 1940.........

despite hitler`s foolishness in russia...

was it in our best interests to buttress britain?..of course...

is it a symbiotic relationship?.....in ww2?...and now?.....yes....but,we are the big brother...that`s just a fact... they do owe us...

..the world was and is a better place......a different place.....thanks to the u.s.a......believe that...


you`re rewriting history bud...

 

[selkirk]

Smurphy believe most history books do not pay enough attention to the war in the east.

GW some good points but the points I made all stand up.

1. Dropping an atomic bomb is a little different than a normal bombing raid. would you not agree. it is a very powerfull weapon that kills entire cities.

yes nuking a country would have an effect...is that what you want me to say....I agree.

2. never said it was not important to bomb infastructure. it is. just that bombing a cities civilian population does not break the enemy will to fight....okay if you drop a nuke...

3. my example was Russia, Germany and London. in all three cases the people did not panic. or were griped with fear.

4. the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth wons it freedom while the US were still out of the war.
that is a fact.

the battle for Britain began in the summer of 1940.

on Sept. 7 with the RAF almost beaten throwing up inexperienced fighters, and almost destroyed; the Germans decided to destroy London

now this writer would agree with the strategy that bombing a civlian population would break the peoples will

London was destroyed bombed daily. gave time for the RAF to regroup, and train more pilots, and planes to get ready ect.

they won the battle of Britain Sept. 17 1940. excuse was the US in the War.....no..

so the US saved Great Britain and her allies.
the truth is by Oct. 1940 the Germans did not have an edge in air or sea. how are they going to invade Britain.

that is why they ditched their plans and went to invade Russia. There was not threat of a German invasion of the UK by Oct. 1940.

by the way did not say the US did not play a huge roll in WW2, and agree with your statement about
the biggest role in supplying equipment was huge in the war effort.

help to shorten the war by years.

also if the US did not enter the war, one of two things would have happened both bad.

1. German hangs on to a large part of Europe and the Nazis hang on to power.

2. Russia wins the war and crushes Germany, Europe is under (except a few nations ie. France) under Russia control....and the cold war begins with Russia in control of Europe, Asia, and the middle East.

that is the most likely.

by the way if the UK foled like a cheap tent. you would have the US face Japan in the Pacific, and within six months a much Stronger German navy in the Atlantic.

by the way do not disagree that 9-11 had a huge impact on the US.

however the Taliban are gone (well no longer in power), and did it achieve it ends.

the US has not changed any policies have they.

as for spain they pulled out of Iraq. which was not popular to begin with, also the government first try to blame another terrorist organization internal......there poor handling of the situation did not help matters.

in fact after 9-11 people enlisting in the armed services increased. there was a strong surge in resolve.

another case that supports the case that when you attack a civilain population you increase that countries will to fight. 9-11, WW2, WW1, Civil War, Rome/Carthage (okay going back a bit...lol).

by the way came across this little article Sept. 4, 1941 (almost a year after UK stood alone and won)

Sept. 4, 1941
Mackenzie King, Cdn. prime Minister warned today that Britain is now the only obstacle in the way of an attack by Hitlers "enslaving Hordes of new barbarians" on the new world.

made an impassioned plea to the US for a declaration of support for Britain similiar to that promised by Churchill for the Americans in the far east.

"the war may drag on for years, carrying in its train famine,pestilence and horrors still undreamed of....


great speech, okay he talked to his dog and the dead but still a great PM.


take care GW, good debate, will have to agree to disagree...i guess

thanks
selkirk

 

[gardenweasel]

sellkirk...i ve very much enjoyed the give and take....we can agree to disagree...

i`ll agree that in and of itself,civilian bombing in ww2 wasn`t a tipping point...at least not conventional bombing...

one note.....many believe...including myself...that the bombing in spain is what tipped the balance of that election...

and as we`ve seen today,the killing of civilians(the bombing of civilian institutions...the sawing off of heads,kidnappings,etc)............and disruption of commerce...destruction of infrastructure(in a nutshell,terrorism)...is an amazingly effective tool when one has the wherewithal to use it ruthlessly....

as we saw in iraq....saddam kept a fragmented society ...a society rife with tribalism and age old hatred and rivalries....toeing the line...

because he was ruthless..and played by their rules..by giving twice what he got in return...

it works even more effectively in contemporary conflict...vs people that have become soft and comfortable...a generation that is utterly horrified by the sight of seeing guard dogs barking at people that want to slaughter them,their sons and their daughters...

excellent debate....don`t be a stranger to the forum......

 

[djv]

WW II I have a hunch had Germany stopped at Poland and Yugoslavia.. Never attacked France, Britain, or Russia. Might be different out come. They might still be there. Im not to sure anyone would have given a chit.