Nothing is a more divisive issue in America currently than the War on Terror. From one side of the aisle you have those who defend it passionately condemning a regime that used torture, fear, and killed thousands of citizens to retain its power. From the other side you have those who maintain that our government’s motivations for this war were not just, but were in fact crooked; ranging from the eagerness to spread American imperialism to the motivation of “blood for oil”.
America is divided there is no question; but through reading James Childress’ “Just War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of their Criteria”, and doing a bit of independent research of my own I hope to show that this war met the just war criteria with some provisions.
Let us first examine what Childress describes as “just war criteria”. In Just War Theories Childress explains that each of us as human beings have a Prima Facie (translated: at first sight, on the surface of) duty not to injure or kill any other human being. However this duty can be overridden if certain criteria are met hence the “just war criteria”. This does not mean that we discard completely the initial Prima Facie duty but rather do our best to honor it despite our new obligation. For example:
If I were to promise my best friend that I would throw him a bachelor party in honor of his recent engagement; but the week of this party in the middle of planning, my father in a different state dies suddenly of a heart attack and I am needed to attend the funeral. My promise to my friend would have to be broken, but that does not mean I would forget it entirely. I would most certainly apologize for not being able to keep the promise and perhaps I would also offer to throw him the party on another weekend when I return. (1)
Childress explains that this same concept applies to our initial Prima Facie obligation not to kill or injure another. If we must go to war then we must do everything in our power to honor the initial obligation rather than discard it. Childress also explains that our conduct is governed by three types of obligations; absolute, relative and (as described above) Prima Facie.(2) Absolute obligations are obligations that have priority over all other obligations and cannot be overridden in any circumstances (these are essentially our universal truths). Relative obligations are moreover maxims or “rules of thumb”; these obligations guide our decisions but do not prescribe any particular action. And of course Prima Facie, as described above is at face value a strong moral truth though it is not fully binding in determining a course of action. I will use an example from Childress on the difference between absolute obligations and Prima Facie obligations.
Ex. 1) The commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
This commandment is at face value Prima Facie because it does not take into account the idea of just wars, capital punishment and so forth.
However, if this commandment was stated:
“Thou shalt not murder.”
This would be an absolute obligation because the definition of murder (as defined in the Princeton online dictionary) is: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being (3)
The just war criteria laid out in this article are, in no particular order, legitimate/competent authority, just cause, right intention, announcement of intention, last resort, reasonable hope of success, and proportionality.
Competent authority is described as “…a precondition for answering the others…” (4). It basically poses the question; is our leadership morally sound in judging our reasons for going to war? Once this is determined we can begin to ask ourselves if the other criteria are met to justify action. Just cause is simply to determine if the reason for going to war is significant enough to outweigh the initial obligation of not harming or killing others. Some just causes may include severe human rights abuses, to protect those who cannot defend themselves or to restore basic rights that have been denied. However, even if your cause is just it does not mean you are free to go to war so long as there is a way to achieve your goal short of it.(5)
Right intention comes into play when you consider the outcomes of the conflict you are determining. It involves the goals of peace, reconciliation, and avoidance of unnecessary destruction throughout the conflict. An announcement of intention is another method, though old somewhat old fashioned, of trying to avoid a conflict. When a nation declares a declaration of war it explains and attempts to justify a move towards forceful conflict.
Any nation that considers engaging in a just war must consider the reasonable hope of success as well. To engage in a never ending conflict without a reasonable goal to achieve is irresponsible and is not ethical. An excellent example of a war without reasonable hope of success was the Vietnam conflict in which America did not commit wholeheartedly to defending democracy in South Vietnam. As a result the conflict was long and drawn out and the American casualties died without a specific objective being fulfilled.
The principle of reasonable hope ties in with the principle of proportionality in which the cost is weighed against the outcome of the conflict. Here is an illustration of this principle:
Ex. 2) Key leaders of a terrorist group are cornered in an old apartment complex. They have taken over 50 civilians hostage and are executing them every half hour, their demands are simple, they want a safe passage out of the building and a rendezvous with their comrades back to the safety of their villages where they will be hidden by other citizens. If these leaders escape then they will continue to commit terrorist acts against other innocents and will inspire others to join their cause. You are the commanding officer.
Do you comply with their demands and hope to rescue the hostages, or do you blow up the building to prevent the terrorists from escaping?
Is the price worth the potential future outcome? That is the proportionality principle in action. And the final criterion that needs to be met in order to justify a conflict is the last resort principle defined simply as; the course of action when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.
To apply these criterion Childress, in his article, gives us five different methods. (6)
A war is considered just if:
1) It meets all the criterion listed above
2) If it meets several criterion (though no particular criteria are specified)
3) Certain fundamental criterion must be met before others are considered
4) Considers criterion as Prima Facie
5) Considers criterion as maxims ( to illuminate but not to prescribe course of action)
Any of these methods are acceptable according to Childress in deciding if a war is just but the most commonly used application is the second point.
Now that I have discussed the definition of just war, the criterion that needs to be met and the situations in which you can apply the criterion, it is essential to, point out as Childress does in this essay, that just because we have determined when it is acceptable to go to war, even if justly, we should exercise this very carefully.
“Just because we have the right to do something doesn’t mean we ought to do it.” (7)
In regards to the War on Terror we have to examine two different facets of this conflict the first being was it a “just war” to begin with and does our cause remain just almost a decade into it. On September 11, 2001 three commercial airliners full of civilians were driven into the World Trade Center and Pentagon another crash landed in a field due to the efforts of the American patriots on board who would not let their plane be the fourth to hit an important landmark in America. This day defined terror in a whole new way for the average American. We saw the ugly face of fundamentalist religion rear its head and consume close to 3,000 innocent civilians. This attack was years in planning and the men felt no remorse killing the innocents but rather felt it an honor to die in the service of their God.
Across the world in the countries of the Middle East Palestinians and Iraqis and many others danced for joy in the streets upon hearing the news of this tragedy. Our retaliation was against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan for supporting and harboring those responsible.
America’s focus shifted to Iraq soon after Afghanistan for similar reasons such as the suspicion of aiding terrorist networks and the development of weapons of mass destruction. The three main reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq were presented by the Bush administration preceding the invasion.
Firstly the argument of preemption was presented. The main argument here was that the use of force was necessary and justified in order to keep Saddam Hussein from using the chemical and biological weapons his country had and to also keep him from developing nuclear capabilities which he continued to pursue vigorously despite the sanctions placed on Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait in the first gulf war. This does fall into the categories of just cause and right intention though preemption is hotly debated. The cause is however just in the regard that the United States wanted to keep weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capabilities out of the hands of a ruthless and unpredictable dictator and the intention is right because the goal is a peaceful and safer world as the outcome. President Bush addressed the security council on this point saying:
“Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and friends, it would be wreckless to accept the status quo.”
The second argument for action against Iraq was the enforcement of International Law. The United Nations took a passive approach to Iraq despite the continual violations of the 1991 truce after the first Gulf War. The sanctions required that Iraq pull out of Kuwait, pay reparations and disband its chemical weapons program. Saddam Hussein continued to pursue chemical and nuclear capabilities hence breaking the sanctions enacted by the U.N. In regards to international law when a sanction is violated hostilities are opened again, a violation of a truce is seen as a deliberate act of deception and conflicts with the intentions of the sanctions which are to establish a safer more peaceful world (hence the cause of a just war).
The third and most compelling reason for the conflict in Iraq was to remove a dictator who has committed grossly sadistic human rights violations. From the ordered killings of members of congress (without any trial) when he took power, to the Kurdish genocide in which over 5,000 innocent people were killed by chemical weapons, to the torture of prisoners of war during the Iran-Iraq conflict in which acid baths and electric drills were used mercilessly on defenseless prisoners. This argument alone is the basis for a just war, it fulfills just cause (to protect the innocent civilians from human rights abuses), right intention (to keep the weapons out of the hands of a brutal dictator with terrorist sympathies, making the world a safer place to live), announcement of intention and last resort (Saddam had repeated chances over a decade to comply with U.N. inspectors and he did not).
The United Nations and the world turned its head for over a decade while these atrocities were being committed. Removing Saddam as a dictator was an ethical course of action for the sake of a safer world.
From the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom our goals have been to remove Saddam from power (which we have done), to establish and rebuild the economy of Iraq (which is in progress), to create a free society where the leaders are elected (which is also in the beginning stages), and to disrupt terrorist networks that were sheltered in Iraq (which we have done). The same goals we began with are as just as they were in 2003. So long as we stay the course we have a reasonable hope of success and the prospect of a democratic and free society where there used to be an opressive regime built on fear and torture is certainly, in the proportionality principle, worth the price. I believe that Abraham Lincoln not only spoke to leaders such as Saddam Hussein when he said;
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
But he was also speaking directly to the free citizens of America to remind us that while there are people who are oppressed in other societies that it is our moral and ethical duty as Americans to work toward spreading the freedom we have been blessed with in our great country to other nations around the world.
Sources:
“Just War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of their Criteria”
By: James F. Childress
(1) pg.431-432 (2) 430-431 (3) 431 (4) 435 (5) 436 (6) 441-442 (7) 444
“How Saddam Happened”
By: Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
(from: Inside Iraq- A series of essays)
“Behind the War on Terror”
By: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
“Operation Iraqi Freedom”
By: Thomas Donnelly
“The War to Oust Saddam”
By: James Turner Johnson
Internet Sources:
The Iraq War- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Saddam Hussein- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Reasons for War- http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment