The AP on 'Just War'

Posted By Grim

Apparently the meeting between President Bush and the Pope did not produce a discussion of "Just War." 

The president said their was no discussion of "just war," a Christian doctrine that says war must have a reasonable chance of success of not doing more harm than good. According to the doctrine, war must be a last resort, launched in response to unjust aggression and civilians must be safeguarded.

That sounds like the AP reporting on a "gotcha" question, rather than something the President said off the top of his head.  And yes, it proves to be.

Q Thank you, sir. Can you talk about your conversation with Pope Benedict earlier? Did you have a fundamental disagreement over whether Iraq was a just war?

In a way, it's a shame they didn't have the discussion, because it's an interesting question.  The AP blurb on "just war" suggests that it is a simple doctrine, when in fact it is a hugely complex one -- as you would expect of a philosophical position developed over several hundred years.

For example, leftist professor Michael Walzer wrote (on p. 101 of the Second edition of Just and Unjust Wars, his famous work on the subject) of the case for humanitarian intervention.  Consider how much different the AP's blurb would look if it had described a "just war" in this way:

If the dominant forces within a state are engaged in massive violations of human rights, the appeal to self-determination in the Millian sense of self-help is not very attractive.  [GRIM:  What is meant here is that a nation-state is normally supposed to be the self-expression of a national will.  As a result, members of that nation can justly overthrow their own government either politically or otherwise.  Members of other nations normally ought to respect the national will of their neighbors.  Walzer is here describing one of the exceptions to "normally ought."] 

That appeal [to self-help] has to do with the freedom of the community taken as a whole; it has no force when what is at stake is the bare survival or the minimal liberty of (some substantial number of) its members.  Against the enslavement or massacre of political opponents, national minorities, and religious sects, there may well be no help unless help comes from outside.  And when a government turns savagely upon its own people, we must doubt the very existence of a political community to which the idea of self-determination might apply.

From pages 107-8:

Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts "that shock the moral conscience of mankind."  The old fashioned language seems to me exactly right.  It is not the conscience of political leaders that one refers to in such cases.... Any state capable of stopping the slaughter has a right, at least, to try to do so.

The Pope is a humane leader who has no cause to love war, and a particular duty to advocate for peace.  Nevertheless, Iraq seems to me to have been from the outset a just war -- if it were otherwise, I would never have supported it.

UPDATE:  A reader requests an elaboration of the argument.  After the jump, a full explanation of why I think the war was legitimate under Just War theory.

First of all, let's make clear that I am going to argue that Iraq is a "Just War," that is, that it is justified by the principles of Just War theory. Out of fairness, since I started with Walzer's book, I'll stick with it as the authority on the question. I like Walzer's formula, even though it is somewhat controversial among military men, because it is rooted in the Left's tradition as much as it is in the traditional, Catholic-based tradition. As a result, it ought to be something that we can broadly agree to respect as a guiding principle (leaving aside, of course, Quakers and others genuinely opposed to the use of violence -- whom I respect for their principles, but with whom I obviously differ).

I'll also note that I am not aware of what, if anything, Walzer has said about the current war; but I think that may be an advantage. In his book, we have a pre-war statement of principles, one that was not written to attack or support the particular policy of the day. As a result, we have first principles from which we can reason cleanly, rather than principles that may have been swayed by the attempt to justify the act.

Just War theory splits, right up front, into two separate fields: Justice in beginning a war (Jus ad bellum) and the just way to wage war (jus in bello). We're really talking about the first of those two here -- the question of whether or not it was just to invade Iraq and replace its government.

In order to answer the question of when war between nations is appropriate, Walzer looks at what a nation state is "for." He says that the state is designed to protect the rights of political communities. (This argument begins on p. 53, if you're using the 2nd Edition, which is the one I have on hand). "The rights of states rest on the consent of their members," he notes (p. 54). "Over a long period of time, shared experiences and cooperative activity of many different kinds shape a common life." This common life -- "culture" would be a good word for it -- consists of a lot of things. It consists of shared values, and an idea of right and wrong; ideas about how the government should function (for example, see our post a few posts down how the Iraqi judicial system was arising not from the US teachers, but from Iraqi notions of what a justice system should be, including Continental-style investigative judges); and a narrative history that the people recognize as their own.

This is the thing that the whole idea of sovereign states is set up to protect. It rises out of European history, is the reason that a people who think of themselves as "Scots" have a right to govern themselves according to "Scottish" notions that are different from "English" or "French" ones. The system is basically good, because it protects peoples' freedom to live according to their common will, and therefore to be happy in this world.

The AP is right to say that the Just War tradition says a great deal against aggression, which Walzer describes as a crime. The reason it is a crime, however, is that it is the suppression of one nation's natural right to govern itself and make its own choices by another. Such a suppression can normally never be justified, except in self defense -- that is, it is still not justified, since the other nation was actually the aggressor.

It is here that we return to the two quotes from the original blog post above, in which Walzer is describing one of several exceptions to this general rule.

As Walzer notes, a state that is sufficiently brutal has -no claim- to legitimacy under this understanding of what nations are, and are for. It is possible, of course, that a minority in a state will not be happy with the state -- but that is not usually the business of other states. The minority is meant to work for change in their own nation, through politics or even through violence, as a means of 'self help.'

There can be a case, however, in which the suppression of any sort of political opposition is so thorough and brutal that there is no hope of self-help. Iraq under Saddam seems to be a clear example of that sort of state. Saddam's brutality does not need to be rehashed here; but his deliberate destruction of existing political structures through which people could express differences was thorough, brutal, and indeed of the sort that "shocks" human conscience. Two examples will serve: the infamous meat grinders large enough to fit people; and the introduction of rape rooms, whereby innocent female relatives would be raped in order to compel cooperation or punish dissent among dissidents.

Under those circumstances, what is supposedly a "nation state" on the surface is in fact an abomination. The purpose of a nation is to protect the contract of a people; instead, this sort of state exists to violently suppress it. It does not protect the culture or the people, but destroys both; and, using the mechanisms of state power, prevents change from within.

That is a threat not only to the people so suppressed, but to the integrity of our entire international system. Every international "law" is really a treaty: treaties between governments. Governments get their power based on the consent (in Walzer's sense of the term, p. 53-4 again) of the governed. Thus, a government that is hollow -- that has no consent, but is instead smashing all opposition -- can enter no treaty; it can join no law. It is not legitimate; it is not recognized.

More, it is denying its people what both Walzer and the international system recognize as their most basic human right: the right to be participants in a nation that protects them. And it violates their every other human right as well, in a fashion that shocks and horrifies.

Therefore, Walzer concludes, a nation that can stop this -- one that has a reasonable chance of helping them form a new state, based on the consent of the governed -- has "a right, at least, to try." A right, at least -- perhaps a duty.

We had a reasonable chance of success -- I think we still have a reasonable chance of success, and in fact I think we will succeed if we commit ourselves to following through no matter what. If we do that, I firmly believe, we cannot fail.

Therefore, America had a right to try. We can debate separately whether or not we had a duty; but we surely had a right.

Comments

[yourkidding]

Why not ask the Iraqi's the old Reagan line... "are you better off today than you were 4 years go..." and ask if we are better off as well.

The answer is no.

[OldSoldier54]

"... The AP blurb on "just war" suggests that it is a simple doctrine, when in fact it is a hugely complex one ..."

What else is new, brother? It seems pretty clear to me that the MSM is only interested in making the President/Republicans and/or the Military look evil/stupid/incompetent.

I too, believe it is a just war and I support it and our people in all branches whole heartedly. Despite Abu Graib, Pat Tillman, Steve Green and those other idiots in the 502nd and whatever happened at Haditha.

[OldSoldier54]

yourkidding:

Suggest you go to Iraq the Model and email one of the brothers asking him that question.

[valerie]

I followed the run-up to this war. I listened to the debate, I know who said what. I read the declarations, I've read the court opinions that have come out since. I have watched the hearings or read the transcripts. I have read the reports, and either watched the speeches live or read the full transcripts. I have done these things out of a sense of obligation to the people I knew our nation would put in harm's way, both ours and those of other countries.

If I thought this war was unjust or unwinnable, I would oppose it. I would insist on withdrawal of our forces immediately, US prestige be damned. I would stand in Cindy Sheehan's shoes, and do what she could not. If I thought that "turning the other cheek" would be anything but an unmitigated disaster, both for us and for the Iraqi people, I would want to give it a try. But, I have become acquainted with the enemy. I have seen what Saddam Hussein's regime did in the past, and what Al-Qaeda tries to do now. I think the decision of the US Congress to go to war in Iraq was appropriate, prudent, and solidly morally defensible. And, I know I am in the majority, because Nancy Pelosi cannot push George Soros' agenda.

[Mommynator]

I was convinced from the beginning that if we had the will, this was a good place to draw our line in the sand and pound some bad guys and set some people free and help them learn to live with freedom. Maybe their government won't look exactly like ours, but hopefully it would accomodate their traditions and beliefs and basic human rights for everyone in their country.

This whole effort to tear down the war and its prosecutors has disgusted me no end. If we were captive to murderous dictators and insane thugs, would we not want help to liberate ourselves and live in peace? Do unto others . . .

This "weapons of mass destruction" crap is also a sham. I have often thought of one of my favorite quotes from Charles Williams, "Sometimes the altar must be built in one place so that the fire of God can descend in another."

Even if there weren't WMDs (and there were, just moved because we took so long to get there, and for some obscure reason what's been found hasn't been reported), we got rid of a man who was supposed to care for his own people. Instead he tortured them, raped them, starve them, shredded them and experimented on them Nazi style.

I say if nothing else, we did right and continue to do right.

[JG]

Grim: "Nevertheless, Iraq seems to me to have been from the outset a just war -- if it were otherwise, I would never have supported it".

I could not agree with you more. As for yourkidding's comment - al Anbar in now 90% pacificied and Diyala Province is trending the same way. Much of Iraq has been quiet almost form the start and the citizens there have had a vastly improved existence. On sum it is a work in progress but the emphasis is on the word progress. Of course, it progress distresses you, you will not see it.

[jordan]

Again, the AP turns the discussion to "Was the invasion justified?" when the time for that question is over. They can easily craft answers to that question that squarely blame Bush, while avoiding the important question: what is the best course from here forward? That's the pressing question now.

The invasion was done, justified or not, with Congressional and UN assent, and all heads should be looking at the future. I agree with Secretary Gates thinking Pace's hearings would be about the past, not the future. Heads need to turn in that direction -- in the leadership, the media, and our electorate -- to get this right. As for just/unjust war, historians can battle that one out in their lofty symposia later, at their leisure. "hugely complex" is right on.

Part of the problem with this prolonged conflict was this incessant hand-wringing and picking of the scab of the pre-war debate. It compromised everyone's ability to focus on the future goal and what we were working toward, and only produced competing analyses about how fast to quit. Once you're in, you're committed, and the only question should be how to prevail.

I'm surprised this reporter even brought up the just war question, replete as it is with historical Christian (gasp) inferences. Also, these Iraq polls everyone keeps bringing up have shown that while life today is difficult, Iraqis see more hope for the future and believe they have a greater chance at freedom and prosperity now than they ever had a chance for under Saddam. They have a long-term attention span, unlike ours.

[jordan]

P.S., I think the question now should be, is there a just retreat, or a just withdrawal? How just would it be to fold without having achieved the critical goals of sustainable Iraqi institutions and defensive forces? There are conditions, such as today, where a retreat would be unjust, and result in killing fields. But the same people that insist that the war didn't hew to just war principles now advocate an unjust retreat. There's simply no choice but to prevail, and prod our fearless political leaders into showing a little of the courage and selflessness of the average American soldier:

"I have only two men out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it's almost suicide to get here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is upon us. I have no one on my left, and only a few on my right. I will hold."

-1st LT Clifton Cates, July 1918

[Jeffrey]

Grim wrote:
"Nevertheless, Iraq seems to me to have been from the outset a just war -- if it were otherwise, I would never have supported it."

I'd like to hear you make the case for the war in Iraq being just. If you've published your argument already, either here or at Grim's Hall, please point me to it. If not, perhaps you'll either post it here or send me an e-mail. You're obviously intelligent, Grim. I'm still waiting to read a smart and rational justification for invading a nation which did not attack us.

Jordan wrote:
"Part of the problem with this prolonged conflict was this incessant hand-wringing and picking of the scab of the pre-war debate. It compromised everyone's ability to focus on the future goal and what we were working toward, and only produced competing analyses about how fast to quit. Once you're in, you're committed, and the only question should be how to prevail."

Under certain circumstances, I agree with you. If I were back in the military, my job would be to complete the mission. Any discussion of whether it's "just" or not would be completely irrelevant and distracting for those of us under orders.

On the other hand, as a civilian, and a citizen, and as someone who wants my political leaders to know my views on things (since we do live in a representative system of government), a discussion about how we shouldn't be in the business of nation-building, nor starting wars with countries that haven't attacked us, nor imposing either our religion or our governmental framework on cultures that are vastly different from our own, is not only valid but necessary. The people of the United States seem to have awfully short memories (i.e., the Vietnam conflict), and even shorter attention spans, PARTICULARLY when they are not personally impacted by the war effort. I wonder how many Americans would have supported this war after the first year if gasoline was rationed; if automakers had their factories converted to building Bradley Fighting Vehicles and armored Humvees; if all 18 year old males had to register for a draft; in other words, if there was a real price to pay for supporting not only this war, but EVERY war. Maybe we would pay more attention the next time a U.S. President starts rattling his saber.

Jeffrey
www.intelfusion.net

[MrSparkle]

Iraq is a failure. It's a failure because the primary and only significant goal was a mistake, the secondary goal ("the pet project") was also a failure in predicted outcome (the suspected free flow to liberal democracy) and the result is now the containtment of an insurgency.

Was the original concept a good idea? Considering the strong 'Realist' arguments for containtment of Saddam's WMD (i.e. there really was no useable WMD), and a newer concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction, or what could be called SAD: Saddam's Assured Destruction) on use of any sort of "WMD", then was it necessary?

If it is not necessary to the security of your homeland you now have to justify why you are sacrificing the lives your soldiers.

Even with a successful and largely non-violent outcome a debate would still exist on whether it was reasonable to attack.

If you attach the real outcome to the events (considering that the previous !is it necessary or not?" claims also contained dire warnings about the probable outcome of the invasion) then their strength increases and the argument for Just war decreases, e.g. a small selection would be: the transfer of justifications after each become devalued or error, the serious over-estimation of the Islamist threat (or alternatively, how well Saddam was helping the War on Terror), the probability of the sectarian war, the increase in anti-Americanism from the invasion and the probability of an insurgency like the Afghan war in the 80s.

Regards,
MrSparkle

[jordan]

Agreed, Jeffrey, those questions should always be debated, and be part of the discourse. I'm speaking narrowly about this particular war.

[Ymarsakar]

I loved how the AP slid that little cliche about war being the last resort. A good way to see is by asking the question, "what is the last resort of a person running out of oxygen underwater and is very deep in depth"? Do they breathe in the water and hope for the best? Do they try to swim up, risking the bends?

The "last resort" is premised based upon the assumption that in a bad situation, your prevention and deterence capabilities occur at the very end, after you have tried everything else. Well okay, then should the diver go look around for an underwater cave and await rescue? Wouldn't that waste his oxygen already if there are no caves?

The last thing you do is the worst thing you can do, because you have already tried out everything else; your time is up. You should not put your best methods, war and force, at the end. Nobody is stupid enough to try an inefficient method to get out of trouble just because they wanted the excitement of seeing what might happen. Nobody should be stupid, that is. If war will solve your problems, then go ahead. If talking and posturing will solve your problems, go do that.

Whatever you do to solve a problem, should be based upon what the problem requires as a resolution. Not on a sort of checklist concerning the "last resort". I mean, if you have a problem, wouldn't you use your best solutions to solve it? And if they don't work, then you have to appeal to a higher power or something like the courts system right? But you would prefer the problem to be solved earlier, rather than resorting to last in the line desperation.

Bush and Co bought into that last resort thing when they could have hammered it into pieces and raised awareness and morale in America. Don't buy into the Leftist EngSoc.

[MrSparkle]

Ymarsakar is right, the Iraq war was the best method of determining whether Iraq was a WMD threat. He is also correct that there were alternatives, containment doctrines we had been practising since 1945 is one example.

Although I can't quite see the Iraq war as being so obvious as the diver swimming up towards the air...

[Jeffrey]

Ymarsakar, what's with the diver metaphor?. Is the U.S. supposed to be the diver, and the water that the diver is drowning in represents Iraq? That's ludicrous.

Is the diver metaphor supposed to illustrate that you have to take the best course of action first and not last? Then you're in agreement with the "last resort" crowd, because that's the standard - you take appropriate action (aka "best" action) to resolve the problem and escalate accordingly. "Last resort" in the case of self-defense typically refers to when it's appropriate to inflict personal injury or death on the person robbing or attacking you. If you shoot someone in self-defense, you'll need to prove that you tried everything else before taking his life. "Last resort" in the case of a country declaring war means that the country's leadership tried every other solution before choosing a lethal one, and, like the example of self-defense, it's exactly what a responsible government should do.

Jeffrey

[D. Smith]

Getting back on topic here...the question was wheather or not the war in Iraq was justified FROM A MORAL PERSPECTIVE (Catholic "Just War" doctrine). There are all kinds of valid reasons from a strategic/economic/political perspective against the war. However, the 300,000+ Iraqi's found in mass graves, (I think that's a conservative estimate) would, in and of itself, justify our eliminating Saddam and trying to install a demcratic style of gov't. From a Christian perspective, if that's not a good enough reason, then nothing is. There are plenty of people who would try an twist that into something it's not, or say that political or economic reason trump moral reasons. And to those who don't believe in God (of the bible), then the argument is a foolish one indeed. But from a Christian moral perspective, the war is justifiable. Just as it would be in Sudan or many other places around the globe where MASS murder of the innocent is taking place.

[MrSparkle]

non-Christians don't have morals, nice one rusted nut.

What about how you fight the war? Torture okay?

[Smitty-ROK]

Maybe someone should ask the people of Kuwait how they feel about respect and national will of their neighbors?

[Grim]

Jeffrey:

Although it's a topic I've often discussed, I'm not sure if I've ever put the several pieces together in one place. I'll be glad to do that here, however.

First of all, let's make clear that I am going to argue that Iraq is a "Just War," that is, that it is justified by the principles of Just War theory. Out of fairness, since I started with Walzer's book, I'll stick with it as the authority on the question. I like Walzer's formula, even though it is somewhat controversial among military men, because it is rooted in the Left's tradition as much as it is in the traditional, Catholic-based tradition. As a result, it ought to be something that we can broadly agree to respect as a guiding principle (leaving aside, of course, Quakers and others genuinely opposed to the use of violence -- whom I respect for their principles, but with whom I obviously differ).

I'll also note that I am not aware of what, if anything, Walzer has said about the current war; but I think that may be an advantage. In his book, we have a pre-war statement of principles, one that was not written to attack or support the particular policy of the day. As a result, we have first principles from which we can reason cleanly, rather than principles that may have been swayed by the attempt to justify the act.

Just War theory splits, right up front, into two separate fields: Justice in beginning a war (Jus ad bellum) and the just way to wage war (jus in bello). We're really talking about the first of those two here -- the question of whether or not it was just to invade Iraq and replace its government.

In order to answer the question of when war between nations is appropriate, Walzer looks at what a nation state is "for." He says that the state is designed to protect the rights of political communities. (This argument begins on p. 53, if you're using the 2nd Edition, which is the one I have on hand). "The rights of states rest on the consent of their members," he notes (p. 54). "Over a long period of time, shared experiences and cooperative activity of many different kinds shape a common life." This common life -- "culture" would be a good word for it -- consists of a lot of things. It consists of shared values, and an idea of right and wrong; ideas about how the government should function (for example, see our post a few posts down how the Iraqi judicial system was arising not from the US teachers, but from Iraqi notions of what a justice system should be, including Continental-style investigative judges); and a narrative history that the people recognize as their own.

This is the thing that the whole idea of sovereign states is set up to protect. It rises out of European history, is the reason that a people who think of themselves as "Scots" have a right to govern themselves according to "Scottish" notions that are different from "English" or "French" ones. The system is basically good, because it protects peoples' freedom to live according to their common will, and therefore to be happy in this world.

The AP is right to say that the Just War tradition says a great deal against aggression, which Walzer describes as a crime. The reason it is a crime, however, is that it is the suppression of one nation's natural right to govern itself and make its own choices by another. Such a suppression can normally never be justified, except in self defense -- that is, it is still not justified, since the other nation was actually the aggressor.

It is here that we return to the two quotes from the original blog post above, in which Walzer is describing one of several exceptions to this general rule.

As Walzer notes, a state that is sufficiently brutal has -no claim- to legitimacy under this understanding of what nations are, and are for. It is possible, of course, that a minority in a state will not be happy with the state -- but that is not usually the business of other states. The minority is meant to work for change in their own nation, through politics or even through violence, as a means of 'self help.'

There can be a case, however, in which the suppression of any sort of political opposition is so thorough and brutal that there is no hope of self-help. Iraq under Saddam seems to be a clear example of that sort of state. Saddam's brutality does not need to be rehashed here; but his deliberate destruction of existing political structures through which people could express differences was thorough, brutal, and indeed of the sort that "shocks" human conscience. Two examples will serve: the infamous meat grinders large enough to fit people; and the introduction of rape rooms, whereby innocent female relatives would be raped in order to compel cooperation or punish dissent among dissidents.

Under those circumstances, what is supposedly a "nation state" on the surface is in fact an abomination. The purpose of a nation is to protect the contract of a people; instead, this sort of state exists to violently suppress it. It does not protect the culture or the people, but destroys both; and, using the mechanisms of state power, prevents change from within.

That is a threat not only to the people so suppressed, but to the integrity of our entire international system. Every international "law" is really a treaty: treaties between governments. Governments get their power based on the consent (in Walzer's sense of the term, p. 53-4 again) of the governed. Thus, a government that is hollow -- that has no consent, but is instead smashing all opposition -- can enter no treaty; it can join no law. It is not legitimate; it is not recognized.

More, it is denying its people what both Walzer and the international system recognize as their most basic human right: the right to be participants in a nation that protects them. And it violates their every other human right as well, in a fashion that shocks and horrifies.

Therefore, Walzer concludes, a nation that can stop this -- one that has a reasonable chance of helping them form a new state, based on the consent of the governed -- has "a right, at least, to try." A right, at least -- perhaps a duty.

We had a reasonable chance of success -- I think we still have a reasonable chance of success, and in fact I think we will succeed if we commit ourselves to following through no matter what. If we do that, I firmly believe, we cannot fail.

Therefore, America had a right to try. We can debate separately whether or not we had a duty; but we surely had a right.

[Jeffrey]

Thank you for expressing your interpretation of Walzer's theory on Just War, Grim. I have found an essay by Michael Walzer entitled "Regime Change and Just War" written in 2006. It should be read in toto, so here's the link:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=663

In the meantime, there's this (particularly the last paragraph where Walzer discusses how jus ad bellum requires that the evil regime must act in the present, and not merely have the potential to act wrongly in the future, or to have acted wrongly at some time in the past):

"By 2003 the position of the United States and its allies, a smaller number now, had changed dramatically. To be sure, the second Bush administration gave a variety of reasons for its decision to go to war: another day, another reason. But all the reasons suggested the need, this time, to march on Baghdad and replace the Baathist regime. The most important reason was the danger that Iraq possessed, or in the near future would be capable of producing, weapons of mass destruction. But the fact that France (say) possessed weapons of mass destruction was never imagined as an occasion for war. It was the character of its regime that made Iraq dangerous: the U.S. government claimed that Saddam’s was an inherently aggressive and an inherently murderous regime. Just as it had committed aggression in the past, so it had massacred its own people in the past, and American leaders insisted that, in this case, the past was prologue. What had happened before would happen again unless the regime was replaced.

So Iraq was not similar to the German or Japanese or the (hypothetical) Rwandan case: the war was not a response to aggression or a humanitarian intervention. Its cause was not (as in 1991) an actual Iraqi attack on a neighboring state or even an imminent threat of attack; nor was it an actual, ongoing massacre. The cause was regime change, directly—which means that the U.S. government was arguing for a significant expansion of the doctrine of jus ad bellum. The existence of an aggressive and murderous regime, it claimed, was a legitimate occasion for war, even if the regime was not actually engaged in aggression or mass murder. In more familiar terms, this was an argument for preventive war, but the reason for the preventive attack wasn’t the standard perception of a dangerous shift in the balance of power that would soon leave “us” helpless against “them.” It was a radically new perception of an evil regime.

No one who has experienced, or reflected on, the politics of the twentieth century can doubt that there are evil regimes. Nor can there be any doubt that we need to design a political/military response to such regimes that recognizes their true character. Even so, I do not believe that regime change, by itself, can be a just cause of war. When we act in the world, and especially when we act militarily, we must respond to “the evil that men do,” which is best read as “the evil that they are doing,” and not to the evil that they are capable of doing or have done in the past. Aggression and massacre are legitimate causes of war, and we must learn, what we have not yet learned, to respond to each of these in a timely and forceful way. But the existence of regimes capable of aggression and massacre requires a different response."

Source: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=663

[Synova]

You mean there actually *is* a Christian "Just War" doctrine? As in... the Catholics have one?

[MrSparkle]

Simplistically it looked like a Just war:
* risk of inaction was dangerous
* continuing of sanctions horrendous effect on Iraqi people
* war would minimise casualties
* pre-war appeared US would take control of security situation

In reality:
* risk of inaction far less than told
* use of torture widespread
* conduct of war has destroyed moral high ground and bred anti-Americanism
* failure to provide security for Iraqis has resulted in deaths of more civilians than under Saddam (through an abdication of responsibility)

The war felt morally right but the outcome has been poor.

Jordan is completely right and it would be more immoral to leave our mess than to remain and try and fix it.

[Smitty-ROK]

Jeffery, are you suggesting trade embargos and sanctions? We are at WAR! Justified or not, my brothers are in harms way this evening... And number one in Iran is aiding the enemies of my brothers and sending them home in flag draped coffins... In my own opinion, we should turn downtown Tehran into a parking lot...

[Grim]

"[W]e must respond to “the evil that men do,” which is best read as “the evil that they are doing,” and not to the evil that they are capable of doing or have done in the past."

With respect to Walzer's argument in the current case, I had the opportunity in 2003 to attend a briefing at the Pentagon given by the Physicians for Human Rights. They had been in Iraq (courtesy of US DOD and, especially, the UK's MOD, in whose area they had mostly operated) following the invasion. Their findings were that one in three households in the southern, Shi'ite regions had experienced a loss from Saddam's regime; and furthermore, that the number of executions and the experience of oppression had been racheting up in the most recent years.

You don't have to take my word about what they said, however, since they published their findings. I believe this is the correct document:

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2003-september.html

This was not, in other words, a "past" problem. It was an ongoing problem; in fact, it was a problem that was increasing in scope.

Now, I don't disagree with the general assertion that regimes that have previously been vicious, and have yet the scope to be vicious, have to be dealt with in other ways -- for example, China. War is not the answer to the China human rights problem, in spite of their capacity for violations, or even their current level of violations.

I think that Iraq, however, remains justified on the grounds described above. I hope that Prof. Walzer, if he had been fully aware of the scale of the ongoing abuses, would have agreed.

[Ymarsakar]

Comment below written by: Synova

You mean there actually *is* a Christian "Just War" doctrine? As in... the Catholics have one?

Posted by: Synova | Jun 10, 2007 7:27:58 PM

The Catholic Church had it, although it was developed by additions from individuals as time went on. Catholics really stopped doing militant things after a couple of reformations, so they really didn't have much use for Just War Theory. Even though it was there to be used.

Ymarsakar, what's with the diver metaphor?. Is the U.S. supposed to be the diver, and the water that the diver is drowning in represents Iraq? That's ludicrous.

Not everything is about Iraq, Jeffrey. The diving example is just that; an example of a problem that can have any number of attempted solutions and consequences from the first attempt to the last.

you take appropriate action (aka "best" action) to resolve the problem and escalate accordingly.

I have not seen the last resort crowd solve any problems. So what are you talking about? Their first resort has never resolved any problem, international or domestic. In fact, their starter kit of actions actually worsened the problem, and it's not just Global Warming that it applies to either.

If you shoot someone in self-defense, you'll need to prove that you tried everything else before taking his life.

This is America and while laws differ from the West to the East to the South, it is still not overall structured like Britain and Australia where you the defendant have to prove that you used "reasonable" force after attempting escape and non-violent methods.

"Last resort" in the case of a country declaring war means that the country's leadership tried every other solution before choosing a lethal one

You mean that country wasted 50 years letting people die just so they can try their pet theories out, only in the end using war, which worked? Maybe they could have went straight to war and cut through the bs. Because essentially, a government that has to depend upon some kind of last resort, is gambling not with money but with lives.

There is also the facet concerning the scenario where nothing works. And then the operating country has to basically look in the mirror and start thinking about how the problem may not be the order in which they have attempted resolutions; the country should start thinking about the possibility that they lack in something essential and non-material instead. Israel is a good example of 50 years of trying everything under the sun, with nothing working. Not permanently anyways.

[D. Smith]

Mr. Sparkle,

As far as some non-christians having morals, some do, many don't. Many of them subscribe to a Judeo-Christian philosophy even though they themselves do not believe in God or any faith. Come to think of it, the largest mass murders on earth to date have been committed by non-christians (see Stalin, Mao, Hitler,PolPot etc.) add up the conservative total and what you get is something that makes the crusades look like a 1950's rumble. I have many, many friends who are not christians and I love them dearly. But when you have no clear, firm unmovable point from which you draw your moral values, they can then slip into a state which we call "flux", where things get turned around and upside down and confusion results. That's not to say there haven't been bad Christians or people who do horrible things in the name of God. But based on your hostility and name calling (and failure to understand history), I'd guess you're just an angry individual who has no sense who he is or what meaning his life may hold. You have my sympathies. As far as torture goes I would condone it only to save lives, especially non- combatant lives, not for enjoyments sake or revenge. Now go rust that nut...

[Jeffrey]

Thanks for the link, Grim. I downloaded the .pdf report and read it. There's certainly no disputing the evilness of the Hussein regime. What is in dispute is what percentage of the reported abuses were occuring when the U.S. invaded Iraq. According to the report, 70% of the reported abused occurred before the year 2000 (with most of those occurring between 91 and 93), while 30% occurred between 2000 and 2003. It doesn't really meet Walzer's requirement for a just war, but it certainly does meet Walzer's recommendation for multi-national containment. It's undisputable that the vast majority of Hussein's crimes occurred in the 80's and early 90's. If the first Bush administration wanted to go after Hussein for human rights violations, that would have been the time to do it. Instead, we acted only after Hussein invaded Kuwait, and justified our action because of Kuwait, NOT because of what he did to his own people.

After the first Iraq war, containment measures were put into effect and Hussein lost the ability to create WMDs and to conduct mass killings. All of which leaves us at the same debatable question. Was the U.S. morally justified in it's pre-emptive move to bring about forced regime change. If we're applying the Walzer standard for Just War, the record doesn't support it.

I do give you credit for picking Walzer as your philosophical basis, however. That took a lot of guts, considering that he himself doesn't support regime change in Iraq.

[Grim]

The credit isn't mine, to be sure. It belongs to a teacher I had, who impressed me with his honest philosophy. He was a self-declared socialist; and I am not one, but he was as fine a teacher as I ever had. He was honest with me, and I shall be with you.

He introduced me to Walzer, and I was impressed then, as I am now. I still see nothing wrong with his first principles -- the ones I knew at first, and to which I still refer. I'll forgive him if his interpretations of those principles differ in the particular instance. That is no matter; men of good heart can disagree. What matters is that we agree on the underlying principles, whatever we make of the appliance.

As to 'multinational containment,' containment is not what is implied by the principles that Walzer set forth. It was not 'that we might keep his harm to those who are already under it,' but 'that we might take a state that murders, and return it to the ideal of a state that defends the consent of the governed.' I'll stand on his original vision, the writing he put forth when this was not a political but an ethical issue. Once, not so long ago, that's just what it was. And it is only giving the man his due to say that I was taught by him, and looked to those principles when it came time to decide.

If he and I have applied his principles differently, that is only what two different people will do. You asked for an honest accounting; I hope, and think, I have given you one. I don't ask you to agree, anymore than I demand it of Walzer himself. Once upon a time, however, we had principles -- his left, mine right -- that we could stand upon alike. May those principles outlast us, without regard to the current matter under arms.

[Jeffrey]

I agree, Grim. Principles first, politics second. Thanks for an intellectually stimulating discussion, a very honest accounting, and for introducing me to the writings of Michael Walzer.

Jeffrey
www.intelfusion.net

[Ymarsakar]

If we're applying the Walzer standard for Just War, the record doesn't support it.

Far as I can tell, Walzer doesn't support regime change because he prefers his own pet plan, which even he recognizes is unworkable due to the French and German actions of appeasement towards Saddam. So Walzer criticizes what worked, the overthrow and execution of Saddam which stopped the slaughtering of people by Saddam, and he criticizes the agents and organizations that prevented his own favored theory from being workable.

If the goal is to restore a nation's sovereignty and the power of the people, then why does it matter what methods are used? Walzer is stuck in the middle, because he cannot let his sanctions with teeth preference go, but nor could he sanction the actions of the UN or UN supporters like Europe.

You can't be stuck in the middle when the issues are just and unjust, right and wrong. We live in the real world here, and in the real world either it works or it doesn't work. No amount of talking after or before the fact will change a thing concerning the actions people have cemented themselves to.

What is so difficult about the setting of a goal defined as saving human lives and ensuring human dignity, that it requires endless talking and refinement of irrelevant details such as "before" or "after, "sanctions" vs "regime change"? Whatever you are going to do, do it now. Cause if you want to refine things down, then it becomes less about people and more about coming up with the right theory to justify our actions.

Focus must be maintained.

The existence of an aggressive and murderous regime, it[refering to the Iraq War] claimed, was a legitimate occasion for war, even if the regime was not actually engaged in aggression or mass murder.

Too much academic debate creates muddy thinking. This is a good example of the case where focus is lost. If you just look at what was going on, Saddam's bribing of the UN, it was basically a system where children and families starved, Saddam got more powerful and funds which he used to fund suicide attacks on civilians. Academically, this isn't "mass murder" or "aggression". But realistically... it might as well be. Just cause you're inefficient, doesn't mean killing more than 100 makes you immune from the status of mass murderer.

How is a regime that controls its people through mass murder, intimidation, terrorism, central food hoarding, etc going to be just minding its own business without aggression and mass murder? It cannot exist, those type of civilizations must have fuel to continue to burn.

It is not as if Bush was following Just War Theory or even said that he was, so Walzer's contention that Bush was expanding certain benchmarks of Just War doesn't seem all that solid. Bush was doing his own thing, if Walzer didn't like it, he should talk about how Bush increased the human rights violations and deaths, not complain about how Bush didn't do things the way Walzer would have liked it to be done.

Time marches on. Defending against terrorism means fighting states that support terror. Iraq just happened to be one of those states, maybe cause Saddam was bored and couldn't get his killing fix with the no Fly zones around. Terrorism is a cheap way to kill folks, both in terms of any negative consequences suffered and the fixed costs of starting ops up.

It was a radically new perception of an evil regime.[again Iraq and prevention]

As if Bush was focused on a specific "evil regime" rather than future 9/11 attacks.

Walzer only erased the response to aggression checkbox because he thinks iraq is no threat to the US or at least didn't attack the US. Walzer thinks that sanctions with teeth would work, except there are no sanctions with teeth... so how does something work, when it doesn't exist in the first place. Second point of contention is that eventually Iraq will attack the US, if you give them enough time and leeway space. Then it will be Afghanistan all over again. So if Walzer thinks Afghanistan was a just war, then is Walzer just saying that it doesn't matter how many people can potentially die in the future, he can prevent it with sanctions when he couldn't prevent it with Afghanistan OR Iraq? You will have an invasion of Iraq sooner or later. Because sanctions does nothing when grassroots terrorism has taken hold of the population. Not even sanctions with teeth. Because no matter how many planes you have in the air looking down, the terrorists are able to freely interact with civilians and children.

That's not the path you want if you wish to save lives in the long run.

In the case of Nazism, regime change was the consequence, not the cause, of the war fought by the allies. It wasn’t the aim of the wars declared in 1939 by Poland, France, and Britain to transform the German state. Rather, these were paradigmatic just wars; their cause was resistance to armed aggression. And according to the just-war paradigm, resistance to aggression stops with the military defeat of the aggressor. After that, presumably, there is a negotiated peace, and in the course of the negotiations, the victims of aggression and their allies may legitimately look for material reparations and political guarantees against any future attack, but regime change is not part of the paradigm. It is a feature of just-war theory in its classic formulations that aggression is regarded as the criminal policy of a government, not as the policy of a criminal government—let alone a criminal system of government. Individual leaders may be brought to trial after the war; the governmental system is not at issue. But if we understand aggression as an act that follows from the very character of the system—which is how we came to understand Nazi war-making—then regime change will seem a necessary feature of the postwar settlement.

America has always gone beyond Just War Theory. America actually has the better system of warfare, proven by how often European nations go to war with each other, even though Just War Theory came from Europe. So the distinction that regime change after a successful war resisting aggression is a very important one.

Another thing I wish to mention is the last sentence of Walzer's here. He knows that regime change is important if the very fundamental nature of the regime causes it to kill more people as long as it exists. And yet he complains about prevention, not because prevention doesn't work or is done on non-threats but because prevention isn't just. Why isn't it necessary or just if the goal of Just War is to save sovereign people as opposed to unsovereign dictators? Is doctrinal loyalty to Just War Theory more important than prevention of needless deaths? How is it that Just War Theory, something that has been built upon for centuries, become suddenly this Rosetta stone of legitimacy that cannot and should not change?

till, the primary cause of the intervention is to stop the killing; regime change follows from that purpose. An authoritarian regime that is capable of mass murder but not engaged in mass murder is not liable to military attack and political reconstruction.

Again we have this belief on Walzer's part that Saddam wasn't engaged in mass murder. Presumably because Walzer's prefered method of sanctions was working. You see how that mental link is tied together? Saddam must have stopped mass killings, because if Saddam was "still" mass killing, then that meant sanctions weren't doing a damn thing to Saddam and that would have meant that "sanctions with teeth" might not have done anything more. And sanctions with teeth was the personal preference of Walzer, something he had invested in personally.

That's not wise, to say the least.

I'll begin to wrap this up with some quotes from an interview with Walzer in which he answers directly at some of the peripheral and central issues discussed at this thread.

Question: You've been highly critical of the Bush administration's policy towards Iraq and especially of their attempt to legitimate a doctrine of preventive war. At the same time, you have suggested that European critics of the US administration – especially the French and German governments – have failed to take seriously their own responsibility for the maintenance of a peaceful international order and have undermined international efforts to contain Saddam Hussein. Could you say something about how these criticisms are connected to the account of just war you defend in Just and Unjust Wars? In your view, how should European powers see their international role in a world in which the United States is as militarily dominant as at present

The criticisms that I have made of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war follow pretty closely, I think, the argument in Just and Unjust Wars (see the chapter on 'Anticipations'). But my critique of French and German policy doesn't have much to do with just war theory. It is a much more general moral/political critique, having to do with hypocrisy and irresponsibility rather than with injustice. France and Germany did not refuse to fight or wrongly resist a just war; they refused to provide what was in their power to provide: a serious alternative to an unjust war. I continue to believe, even at this late date, that had France and Germany (and Russia too) been willing to support, and had the UN Security Council been willing to authorise, a strongly coercive containment regime for Iraq, the war would have been, first, unnecessary, and second, politically impossible for the American government to fight. But this would have involved giving up the notion that force was a 'last resort,' as the French said, or morally impermissible, as the Germans said. For containment depended on force from the beginning: the no-fly zones and the embargo required forceful actions every day, and the restoration of the inspection regime depended on a credible American threat to use force. Now imagine the no-fly zones expanded to include the whole country; imagine the very porous embargo replaced by 'smart sanctions,' which actually shut down the import of military equipment (while permitting materials needed by the civilian population); imagine the inspectors strengthened by UN troops, who could patrol installations once they had been inspected, and by unannounced surveillance flights. Given all that, it would have been very difficult to make a case that Iraq was still a threat to its neighbours or to world peace. But the US did not want a regime of that sort, having settled on war early on; and France and Germany were not willing to support anything close to this: they had, in fact, decided that the appeasement of Saddam was the best policy.

What should be the role of Europe in a future international order? European states together could create a new balance of power, but that would require military expenditure on a scale that none of them, with the exception of the UK, seems willing to contemplate. Even so, some increase in their military budgets seems to me necessary if they are to play the part that I would like them to play in deciding when war is just and necessary. They can't claim such a role and then, if the decision is made to go to war, insist that the US (or the US and the UK) do all the fighting. That's not a morally tenable position. The US needs partners, real partners, who can say 'yes' and 'no' to our government – but these have to be partners who are ready to take responsibility for the way the world goes. Iraq would have nuclear weapons today, had Europe alone been making decisions about the inspection regime, the embargo, and the no-fly zones. And there would be many fewer Kosovars alive in Kosovo today had Europe alone been making decisions there. It is easy to criticise American unilateralism; I do that all the time. But European irresponsibility is an equally serious problem.

Question: You make some very cogent points about the attitude of the European powers, but the analysis leaves two kinds of question outstanding. First, you are obviously implying that military action to implement a 'strongly coercive containment regime' would have been justified. But is it in your view ever justified to intervene militarily in order to effect regime change? I am reminded of the doctrine of double effect in relation to chronically sick patients, whereby pain relief can be given even if it will cause death, so long as causing death is not the primary purpose of the treatment. It is clear that some elements within the US administration have on the contrary seen regime change as the primary purpose of intervention, to liberate the Iraqi people regardless of their preferences in the matter. How do you see this problem in relation to the justice of the conflict?

Humanitarian interventions to stop mass murder and 'ethnic cleansing' will obviously aim at regime change, since the regime's criminal behaviour is the reason for the intervention. Thus Vietnam replaced the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia when its army shut down the killing fields, and Tanzania replaced Idi Amin's government in Uganda. Had there been a UN intervention in Rwanda, as there should have been, it would surely have resulted in the overthrow of Hutu Power. In the case of Iraq, the northern no-fly zone was something like a humanitarian intervention on behalf of the Kurds, and it produced something like a regime change, in the form of Kurdish autonomy. But the safety and success of the Kurds undermined any argument that might have been made for a war for regime change in Baghdad. I don't mean that this wasn't an awful regime, the worst example of third world fascism. And so I accept what your question suggests: if it happened that a regime of coercive constraint weakened and eventually brought down the Baathist regime, that would have been a desirable side-effect, but only a side-effect, of the constraint.

Question: A second area concerns the problem of what should have been done given the attitude of the French, Germans and Russians, no matter how reprehensible the latters' attitudes are held to be. British public opinion is apparently judging the legitimacy of the war within two distinct frames of reference. On the one hand, there is the (more or less clearly articulated) perspective of just war principles: just cause, proportionality, last resort and so on. On the other hand, there is the pragmatic frame of reference, which renders a war legitimate only if a) the House of Commons votes in favour b) there is relatively unified public support, with a large majority in favour of war and c) the intervention conforms with international law. The current political anguish in Britain derives not only from the fact that Britain's leadership appears to be crushed between the rock of the Pentagon and the hard place of Europe, but because neither condition b) nor condition c) appears to be met. This is why the issue of the second UN resolution assumed a significance on this side of the water that it perhaps did not possess in the US. A second resolution would have made the war more clearly legal (condition c)), thereby swinging a large majority of public opinion behind it (condition b)) The questions are: would a Security Council resolution conferred legitimacy on the war in your view? And should either the US or the UK have gone ahead without it? More generally: what is the relationship between the philosophical principles of just war and the pragmatics of law and political consent?

A final conclusion.

In the case of Iraq, the northern no-fly zone was something like a humanitarian intervention on behalf of the Kurds, and it produced something like a regime change, in the form of Kurdish autonomy. But the safety and success of the Kurds undermined any argument that might have been made for a war for regime change in Baghdad. I don't mean that this wasn't an awful regime, the worst example of third world fascism. And so I accept what your question suggests: if it happened that a regime of coercive constraint weakened and eventually brought down the Baathist regime, that would have been a desirable side-effect, but only a side-effect, of the constraint.

That was the key insight into Walzer's views, in my belief.

Walzer believes he can fullfill humanitarian concerns via sanctions and isolation. And that because you can fullfill humanitarian concerns that way, you have no justification for regime change. The warrior philosophy says something else, notably that if the Kurds are your loyal allies then you must be loyal to them. And this means applying as much power as you can to help them, when you are able to. If you are given a chance to help the Kurds, take it. 9/11 was that chance, Bush took it, for his own reasons true, but it coincided with the Kurds for any number of reasons. The Jacksonian political school of thought combines honor, expansion, human rights, sovereignty, and military power. Just War deals only with human rights and issues of a nation's sovereignty. While Bush made up his own thing as he went along. A hybrid mix of everything or anything, that didn't quite work as intended.

Total War Philosophy combined with Special Forces De Oppresso Liber system of beliefs, mixed in with Jacksonian political philosophy makes for a powerful group of interlocking beliefs that Just War Theory provides the decorations for. It is true that a war must look right, meaning just, in order to acquire supporters. But the question of "how", meaning how do you get a just war, is contained in the American version of Total War Philosophy and certain elements of Jacksonianism. The quesiton of "who", as in who will be tasked to do these things, is answered by the US military, SF or otherwise.

Link to interview

[MrSparkle]

"What is so difficult about the setting of a goal defined as saving human lives and ensuring human dignity, that it requires endless talking and refinement of irrelevant details such as..." a plan?

This was my favourite bit, "eventually Iraq will attack the US", what with flying monkeys?

[MrSparkle]

Smith: It's only possible to be amoral if you are psychopathic. Otherwise we are all moral creatures and all have an "inner spectator" who reviews our actions.

The "universal" morals that Christians accept are actually much wider than you suggest. Some Christians have no problem with homosexuality, or sex before marriage, women priests, etc. The origins of the beliefs of atheists are not really an issue are they? Humanism (probably what the majority of atheists subscribe to in some way) doesn't require a belief in the supernatural.

I am currently agnostic. However my moral system is often shocked by 'evil' beliefs I encounter from many Christians: such as the belief torture is fine. I can't take that person seriously when they start spouting about protecting human dignity.

[MrSparkle]

P.S. Many of the Nazis were Christians. The Catholic church also assisted in the escape of a number of them.

[douglas]

"What is in dispute is what percentage of the reported abuses were occuring when the U.S. invaded Iraq. According to the report, 70% of the reported abused occurred before the year 2000 (with most of those occurring between 91 and 93), while 30% occurred between 2000 and 2003. It doesn't really meet Walzer's requirement for a just war, but it certainly does meet Walzer's recommendation for multi-national containment. It's undisputable that the vast majority of Hussein's crimes occurred in the 80's and early 90's."- Jeffrey

Jeffrey, please be more careful with your conclusions. If 30% occurred in a period of three years, and 70% occurred in a period of 9 years (or more, 'before' is a mighty long time frame), then the three year period is seeing at least an equal degree of abuses, if not more. If you're not careful, you let your predispositions draw your conclusions for you. Your selected statistic doesn't actually support your arguement, it supports Grims.

[douglas]

Oh, let me add this: Just because a tyrant isn't keeping up the pace on abusing his people, doesn't mean taking him out wouldn't be valid under the Just War Doctrine. It would have been tough for Saddam keep up with the '91-'93 period for a prolonged period of time, given the horrid pace he was setting.

[Kafir]

As much as I enjoy this discussion of Just War theory and stopping Saddam from murdering his people, that wasn't really the basis for the war now was it? It all boils down to this: As a response to 9/11, should we have focused 100% of our attention on getting bin Laden or should we have expanded our attention to anyone involved with terrorism in any way? The president chose the latter and I think that was the right thing to do. We can argue about the size of Saddam's role in terrorism, but his writing of those checks puts him in the anyone club and that's good enough for me. In case you're wondering, Saudi Arabia is also a member of the anyone club, but you don't bite the hand that feeds you, at least not until you develop a new source for the food, say, directly to the north.

As for those folks who wrote the bits above about attacking countries that have not attacked us, please tell me Mohammed Atta's rank in the Afghan military or, at the very least, show me his Afghan citizenship papers. By the way MrSparkle, we did get attacked by flying monkeys -- 19 of them.

[arch]

Suppose you bought a new house and after you had moved in, a neighbor calls and warns you about the family whose property borders yours. They had caused trouble, made threats, had guns and had used one of them to kill the previous owner's dog. The father had been convicted and sent to jail for a year.

You are concerned, but want to verify the information before you take these allegations seriously. At the courthouse, the records bear out what the caller has told you.

A few weeks later, you are confronted by the ex convict neighbor who threatens you for parking on his property. You point out that the location of your car is your property and you have the survey to prove it. He claims that the property has always belonged to his family and any survey which says otherwise is wrong. Then he says, "I'm going to get a rifle and kill you." Of course, you know that an felon has no right to own a firearm, but you are worried none the less. The statement alone constitutes assault, but it would be your word against his.

A week later you witness the neighbor's son carrying a hunting rifle into his father's house.

What do you do? Arm yourself? Call the police? Put your new house on the market? or do nothing?

[MrSparkle]

I don't even know what the hell Arch or Ymar are talking about, is this how they do war gaming in the US or something?

[davod]

Just War:

1. Given the continuing outright lies and misdirection I suppose I should not be surprised that some here still suggest they were mislead at the start of the war. Anchoress has a response*

2. Sanctions would never have kept Sadaam in his box. Some of the major players such as Franc and and Russia were actively working against the sanctions. The UN staff were active in the fraud. Iraq was even getting weapons deliveries right up until the war started.

3. Sanctions were having an adverse effect on the people. The UN, NGOs and Sadaam all said that tens of thousands of children were dying each year as a result of the sanctions.

4. The Kurds were only safe as long as the no fly zone was in effect.

5. The suggestion that Iraq would not attack the US (with what) because of its reduced military force is so simplistic as to be laughable. The Iranians have been at war with the US since the 70s. I do not recall the Iranian army, navy or air force atacking the US. Iranian backed ratbags have attacked the US and US interests all over the world. It is not outside the bounds that Iraq was doing the same thing.

6. Waltzer's defintions clearly allow for what the US and other countries did.

*Let’s have President Clinton, Senator Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Madeline Albright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Sandy Berger and all the rest (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein “had WMD” and given half a chance would “use them,” and that the intelligence they saw from President Bush and SecState Powell either was (as Sen. Clinton said) “consistent with the intelligence we saw in the White House [from 1998-2000],” or it was not. Let them testify that they were telling the truth then, or that they were lying through their teeth, all along and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was mere hogwash. Oh and, when they voted for the war, they didn’t actually mean it, too.

[davod]

So Mr. Sparkle, where are you from.

[bthun]

On the point of the topic and the discussion that followed, again I must say that you do an outstanding job Grim! Whatever Matt is paying you is not enough. =8^}

Davod, sometimes it is good to remind folks of what you said. I have in the past taken the time to flesh those points out with links to documents from the period. Given the varied reactions, I have since come to the conclusion that the willfully obstinate will merely give the historical data a yeah but or a so what and press on with some boosh lied meme... So, I don't waste much time on it anymore.

As some may have pointed out in this post, it's too late to rehash how we got to this point. We are here. Radical, stateless Islam is not going away gently into that good night, so we must help them on their way especially since they have declared war on us. Going forward is where we need to focus our attention.

[Grim]

"Whatever Matt is paying you is not enough."

It's OK, bthun, he's promised me a raise. Next year, I get double nothing. :)

[Grim]

By the way, re: douglas' and Jeffrey's discussion of when the killing was happening:

At the Pentagon briefing I mentioned, the PHR rep explained the data this way: she said that there were essentially two spikes of killing, rather than an ongoing background level. The first spike happened after the Gulf War, when Saddam had to suppress unrest created by the impression that he was easily defeated by the allies -- and the idea that we might help the allies overthrow him if they rose up. That is why a large percentage of the deaths were in the 1990s -- they rose from the normal (still quite high) 'background' level of murder to a spike, and then fell again.

The increase in the 2000s is harder to explain, but it was definitely showing a constant increase through the period. The killing and disappearing of Shi'ites by Saddam was getting worse. If you count the whole period together, one in three households had lost a member to the state.

[Ymarsakar]

Comment below written by: davod

So Mr. Sparkle, where are you from.

UK territory I believe it was.

[Retief]

Interesting thoughts. Only one to add. This question wasn't entirely a "gotcha" if we look at the history of starting this war, four years and one Pope ago. Way back in 2003 Bush sent Michael Novak over to Rome to make the case to the Pope that invading riaq was a "Just War". The Pope at the time found the case unconvincing. So this looks to me more like admirable, and all too rare, follow up on a question of substance, not the usual pap.

[Grim]

Thank you, Retief. That does make the news conference question seem less hostile.

[MrSparkle]

Davod

1. You said there was no misleading
There was over-emphasis on Saddam and the danger of inaction
- There was an over-emphasis on Saddam's involvement with terrorism
- There was an over-emphasis on threat of Islamism (and the benefit toppling Saddam would have on the War on Terror)
There was an under-emphasis on the economic reasons for conflict

This is not to even start to mention policy error.

2 & 5. Saddam was a threat
Not a serious threat. Containment was working satisfactorily. Post-war security situation appears worse than pre-war. Terrorism argument is as weak as your estimation, is it after all only "conceivable"?

What was Saddam's intent?

Also, I am from England, where are you from?

bthun if you paid attention to those historical documents you would recount that Saddam was not a radical Islamist.

All this talk of justice is making me sleepy! Maybe I will dream about our "duty" to the people of Darfur. I can comfortably recognise that we wrote some darn blasted strong letters to those bureaucrats in the UN demanding they do something about it! Yeah, their tiny army didn't really did they, g*d damn they are so shit. If we had gone (I mean if we had sent in our boys) in we'd have shown them.

(but it's kind of like we've already done our good deed for the decade isn't it!)

[Smitty-ROK]

Grim
one explanation for the increase of murders is that in the pre-gulf period, Saddam was only one tyrant running the country. His sons gained power themselves after the gulf war. Saddam allowed them to torture and kill as they pleased. Would you say the nut does not fall too far from the tree? I am not 100% in agreement with the administations move to conquer Iraq to which they still have not. Strategically speaking, more attention should of been paid to Afgahastan and their neighbor to the west. I agree somewhat with MrSparkle to the affect that Saddam was contained, however his sons were out of control. As far as a Just War, preemptive at best is my opinoin. The only true ally we have in the region was taking a very bad beating and many innocent people we dying with help of Saddam's $25k to the families of sicko's. Was our friend in danger, I believe so. With the Iran hostage ordeal and the Regan pull-out in 82, we lost credibility with in the region. They tested us as the North Koreans have been doing since the cease fire. The ax handle incident in 76 was the icing on the cake for Kim Il Sung to in essence get away with murder. And we did nothing, as the same with his son in the current day. Firing missles that may or may not be nuke capable is something the administration should of actually paid attention too. Instead of being monday morning quarterbacks, I pose this question to you. Would ending the cease fire for total war with North Korea be Just? Applying the same attributes that were applied to the Iraq war.

[Grim]

"Instead of being monday morning quarterbacks, I pose this question to you. Would ending the cease fire for total war with North Korea be Just?"

Let me say that it depends on what you mean by "total war." If you mean a war of annihilation, then no; that can never be justified. If you mean what the term normally means in military science -- war fought against the civilian economic and industrial base as well as on the military and government functions -- then it might be.

What certainly is justified by these principles would be a regime change action that then tried to bring aid to the people in the DPRK, and give them a chance at a society that represented them. Such an action would need to show beforehand that it had a reasonable chance of success, and of not exploding into a broader regional war (as it did in the Korean conflict).

Say, hypothetically, that we struck a deal with China and the ROK: we'd do the fighting, the ROK would take over and do the peacekeeping, we'd foot the whole bill for it, and China would (in return for staying out, and getting a better trade partner than the DPRK is) hold the northern border and accept any refugees who would prefer to be in China instead of the DPRK while it was being reconstructed. We'd pay China for its expenses.

The "we" in "we'd do the fighting" and "we'd foot the bill" could be the US, NATO, or even the UN Security Council.

Now, if -- for the sake of argument -- China and the ROK agreed to those terms, and the US/NATO/UN was willing to do it... then yes, regime change in the DPRK seems to me wholly justified on those humanitarian grounds Walzer laid out. The DPRK certainly is a society of the type he was describing, and so, if you have a reasonable chance of success, then you have 'the right, at least, to try.'

[Ymarsakar]

I don't think you have the right to try so much as the people suffering have a right to be given a reasonable chance at a better life. This is not a duty because they do not have an agreement that other nations owe them wars of liberation. And duty is oftentimes going both ways, so unless North Koreans are willing to enter into some kind of semi-feudal protectorate status with the US, not sure how duty intersects with liberty here.

That being said, there is a tradition of these things. And they exist for their own reasons, independent of what anyone else would want for Koreans or Americans.

You said there was no misleading

The whole issue of misleading is subjective in that there will always be fools and the wise. One may be mislead while another may not, yet they both would be supporting the same cause.

Not a serious threat. Containment was working satisfactorily.

Of course the folks of the world would think that, they weren't the ones containing Saddam and paying the price in pilot fatigue, aircraft maintenance, and force protection. This applies on a national basis to Britain and the US, but it also includes the people in those countries that aren't actively involved in the process of containing Saddam. Something that Blair and Bush might decided needed changing, would look very different from the folks have had not been required to pay any concrete price for the No Fly Zones and containment policies of the US and Britain and various other nations involved.

This leaves aside the entire fact that Walzer is arguing containment from a human rights intervention and regime change perspective, not a national interest realpolitek one of "let them eat bread" matrix. Including this fact into the analysis, would make the entire thing about containment, a statement that Saddam was contained from abusing his own people. Since that is categorically false, given not least of all Walzer's admissions of a need for sanctions with more teeth being barred by France and Germany, there is really no justification for saying containment was working. Even if you ignored all the other problems with that statement.

Saddam was contained by nations that decided to solve the problem permanently, if folks disagreed, they could send military forces to do the same if they wished. Containment is never a real resolution because time goes by, regardless of the attempts to slow it down. Either way you look at it, regular containment or sanctions with teeth to solve humanitarian concerns, there were no justifications for continuing sanctions and the containment policy in its current form. Neither France and Germany gave much of anything the US needed or wanted for us to contain Saddam. Things in this world aren't free, even though the US provides much of the unpaid protection for Europe; a protection umbrella which trade, science, and civilization has flourished under.

Post-war security situation appears worse than pre-war.

Why is this a concern for people who never wanted to have anything to do with Iraq except "business"? It is not as if they were going to do anything about the situation before the US invaded Iraq. And it is not as if they were doing something at the time we invaded, which disrupted their plans. The only plans they had, the Europeans and those blocking the US use of force, were plans to profit from special deals with Saddam and his sons.

Post-war security is not the business of France, Germany, or any other dissenter that is not part of the team effort. This is not their business, they are nosing their greedy hands into something that they aren't part of, aren't helping, and don't belong in.

Even for individuals, this applies. If you aren't on board, then you can't complain because you really don't give a damn. And neither should we about the concerns of folks who don't play with the team effort.

This is obviously harsher than Grim's tone and position, but my position is simple and clear. If you don't want to help, you can't be complaining. If folks just want to argue endlessly about the past, they can work at a nursery home and do that all day long.

Given the varied reactions, I have since come to the conclusion that the willfully obstinate will merely give the historical data a yeah but or a so what and press on with some boosh lied meme...

Historical data is okay, and it does the work in the appropriate context. However, when dealing with propaganda contexts concerning info wars and unconventional warfare, I believe propaganda methods are far more effective at communication base relations, philosophical beliefs, and strength-positions to people; allies and enemies even.

Geo-politically speaking of course, I'm on another track, Saddam, Syria, and Iran would have worked out an alliance sooner or later after the US had been pissing in their cup of tea with SF ops and Afghanistan ops, sooner or later. Syria and Iran already have an alliance, with Iran being the senior partner. A triumverate system would actually be more stable and harder to destabilize. I prefer Syria and Iran's alliance, more than I would have concerning all three. Then whenever you take on one, you take on the other one as well. Kill Syria, Iraq causes problems in Kuwait, Iran causes problems in Israel and Afghanistan. Kill Iraq, Syria and Iran sends in the reinforcements along whatever they had, either conventionally or unconventionally. Attack Iran, and Syria will just open another in Lebanon and everybody will then be talking about that and how US aggression is inflaming whatever con game the Palesitnians are playing at that moment.

If we're talking about mistakes, then a simple mistake Bush made was not to crush Syria and Iran once he had divided them geographically and prevented the Al Qaeda terrorists from physically crossing Iran and Iraq into Syria with open border policies. This gave both the Left and the Islamics time to gather their strength, recover their pride and boasting, and go on the offensive.

Unlike endless argument about other kinds of previous mistakes like WMDs, this has a notable solution in the here and now. Precisely because I bring up the issue not in order to argue it and use it as an excuse to do nothing, but I bring it up because Bush should correct that mistake by knocking off Syria from the gameboard. Permanently, isolating Iran, the stronger and more senior partner, and some say the more deadlier as well.

Walzer at least doesn't make the common mistake of complaining and never offering something better. Even though Walzer's preferences couldn't occur until Saddam was taken out and executed. There was a time constraint, Sarko and Angie needed time to be elected. Until sane leadership returned to Europe, there wasn't much chance of any sanctions with teeth, unilaterally or multilaterally.

I'm not even going to mention the Russian game and the Chinese problem.

[MrSparkle]

bthun: The current postulating about further military action is precisely why it's not too late to rehash how we got to this point.

Iraq has shown us again the problematic nature of wide scale military intervention. The basis of foreign policy should be based on a strong foundation of pragmatism. The basis of the 'neo-conservative' theory behind reforming Iraq through social engineering has shown to be in error by the current outcome. I think the presumption that the insurgency can be solved by further invasion is ignoring the errors of the theory and playing Russian roulette.

Ymar: the cost of the war has been astronomically greater than the cost of containment. Realpolitik dominated the original rationale for war. Was this merely empty (but necessary) rhetoric hiding the ambitious (but flawed in execution) democratic domino theory below?

Containment was working to address the original problem: prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons.

The post-war consequences to global security have been negative and helped to increase anti-Westernism. In this respect it does involve other nations.

The humanitarian cost of the war is extremely high. There has been a failure (for numerous reasons) of coalition troops in providing adequate security and the result has been horrendous.

On history, lets ignore the Iran-Iraq war and suppose they are possible bed fellows? Isn't this a little extreme and revisionist? It's very convenient to suppose that Iran isn't a (if not the) real winner out of Iraq.

So, what happens when the US intervenes like this? What would happen when you go to liberate the "brainwashed" North Koreans? What happens when you March into Iran? Is anybody honestly going to believe that it will solve a problem, not create two. The military minded should know the power and fury created when you do this, and whatever rhetoric the message reads the same! You should know from the failure of Iraq.

[SCREAMING EAGLE]

The people of ALBANIA dont have the NYTs to read good for them

[Smitty-ROK]

Grim,
Back to my point. Yes I did mean changing the current infastructure set up by Kim Il Sung. The point is this, someboby had enough insight to take out the Saddam regime. If we were to let him go as we did with the DPRK for 50 years, The consequences would of been far worse had either of his offspring gained control. For Saddam was an evil tyrant, in my own opinion, his sons were far worse than Saddam could ever be had they the chance. For all they knew was evil, nothing else had entered their lives. And they would of gathered the intel from the last 50 years of the US and others putting up with the DPRK (still hard to say democratic peoples republic) and come to the conclusion that the rest of the world is a paper lion. And many within countries against them work on greed alone and they would of attained nuclear capabilities, There is no doubt in my ex-military mind they would of pulled those triggers, first upon Israel, and then upon anywhere that their technology would of allowed them, yes, it could be an ultimate suicide or would the world just slap their wrist? 50/50 for them and for what they have already seen and observed. Strategicall speaking not wise, but I never said they were. The enjoyed killing and they were stopped for that.

Is anybody honestly going to believe that it will solve a problem, not create two. The military minded should know the power and fury created when you do this, and whatever rhetoric the message reads the same! You should know from the failure of Iraq.

MrSparkle, we still haven't gotten it right in over 200 years. At least now what the people of Iraq have is an oppurtunity at freedom, what they do with it is up to them. Failure of Iraq, I don't see it as a failure. Many mistakes were made and also learned from. However, it is ultimately up to the people now. They allow the rebels to live among them, and not report them. If you had a crack house next door to you, what would you do?

[Ymarsakar]

Ymar: the cost of the war has been astronomically greater than the cost of containment.

War isn't a business where you count fixed costs, start up costs, shipping costs, and maintenance costs with benefits and profits. It is to Hold the Line at all costs, because what you are fighting for is worth everything and worth taking everything from the enemy.

Astronimically is pure elasticity. It is not even more than 1 order increase in cost.

The basis of foreign policy should be based on a strong foundation of pragmatism.

The Germans were pretty pragmatic when they tied families together, shot one of them, and then threw them all into the mass grave. Pragmatism depends on what your goals are, it is not something of a panacea to the Good; or the Evil.

The post-war consequences to global security have been negative and helped to increase anti-Westernism.

None of that matters. Double envelopment used by Hannibal Barca meant increasing the risk to the center, as the center fell back and became less dense while the left and right flanks moved forward to surround the enemy. This is simply an example of a principle applied in spatial orientation; meaning that increases in threats or negative consequences don't matter at all. The only thing that matters is who wins in the final essay.

I think the presumption that the insurgency can be solved by further invasion is ignoring the errors of the theory and playing Russian roulette.

The only presumptions are from people. So either you are talking about yourself or someone else you have known and analyzed, but certainly you are not talking about people whose true natures you have ignored.

Neither Bush nor Petraues are invading Syria or Iran or Turkey or Pakistan to solve the insurgency in Iraq. Independent of whether that would be the right thing to do or not, your presumption that there are presumptions from "people" is patently non-transparent.

The humanitarian cost of the war is extremely high. There has been a failure (for numerous reasons) of coalition troops in providing adequate security and the result has been horrendous.

Horrendous only because now you are seeing it, whereas before you never paid it any attention because the media didn't give a damn. Now they do, and so it exists for people because supposedly now real humans are dying as compared to before, where it was just numbers on paper. This is one of the chief tools of tyrannies. They control reporter's access to materials and for all that the reporters say they speak truth to power, they are on bended knee before the great tyrants and dictators when it comes to getting their exclusives. This allows dictators to show the world what the world wants to see, and when the US invades and tries to create better conditions in Iraq, the media cannot allow that for then their past transgressions and sins would become manifest. As with all liars, they will not just stop and start telling the truth, for they are past the point of no return with their lies.

On history, lets ignore the Iran-Iraq war and suppose they are possible bed fellows? Isn't this a little extreme and revisionist?

It is not American revisionism that tells us that Great Evils oftentimes hate each other more than they do the capitalistic West. Stalin and Hitler were at each other's throats all the time, same for Cambodia and Vietnam.

It serves a purpose. At the top, the great leaders of evil collude and have lunch together because everything is great for them. But at the bottom they start wars so they can say "sacrifice for me, I will defend you against the Iranian Shia Death Squads". And then the Shia leaders tell their followers "sacrifice for me, I will defend you against the Iraq Sunni Death Squads".... It's how evil controls people, they use a catch 22 system that deviously ensares people within a loop.

It's very convenient to suppose that Iran isn't a (if not the) real winner out of Iraq.

Do you think you are God or something, that you can declare the victors of this reality plane, so easily and effortlessly? The reality decides who are the winners and losers, and a more or less accurate technique is to determine who is 6 feet under or evaporated in an explosion.

I'm not sure about convenient, but declaring a person a victor of a war you don't want to fight in, isn't something that produces accurate analysis.

So, what happens when the US intervenes like this?

Our enemies die hopefully. Stacked up like cordwood one on top of the other. Then maybe we nuke flash them into waste or some such.

What happens when you March into Iran?

Then the Marines will have to do a Xenophon and march out of Iran via Afghanistan. Exfil to friendly bases.

Is anybody honestly going to believe that it will solve a problem, not create two.

When a person is dead, your problems with them are solved. Baring any emotional trauma or connections of course, but I have no emotional connections with my enemies. Death is the great equalizer, for it brings closure to all things, times, places, and entities.

You should know from the failure of Iraq.

You've failed the analysis of death itself. For you do not believe in death and its power, nor can you believe in life because of that. That is a failure a little bit more immediate, don't you think?

[douglas]

Sparkle"the cost of the war has been astronomically greater than the cost of containment."
Show me the numbers.

[douglas]

Smitty, one aspect of taking out Saddam was that it could've served as a message to Lil Kim and those like him, but the Defeatocrats took that useful tool from our hands. Where we could've put pressure on other inhumane regimes by demonstrating that we may not stand idly by, that has now been rendered useless by moronic, myopic politicians of a blue hue. Those folks who claim to be against war inevitably get a lot more people killed and dramatically increase suffering.

[bthun]

one aspect of taking out Saddam was that it could've served as a message to Lil Kim and those like him

Like Colonel Momar Kadafi for instance...

[MrSparkle]

Iraq has a cost based relationship to success. I don't understand what the abstract and contextless fictional world you describe has to do with Iraq!

The Germans goal was to exterminate their enemy, and they did it very effectively. What's even more interested is how their systems evolved, they originally used firing squads but the emotional trauma that the soldiers experienced led them to develop the gas chambers that mechanised & expediated the mass murder.

As far as I can determine you, whilst being a part-time humanitarian, are also a ruthless individual who is prepared for the U.S. to act evil (re: torture) in order to secure her goals.

Ymar, you and the other hawks are directly who I've based that presumption (that further invasions would fix Iraq) on, which is not really a problem is it. According to your Hannibal example the failure in Iraq is intentional and designed to lure in enemy states? Hmm, and is this likely? The war's theory after all was based upon a positive assumption, that there would be a free flow to liberal democracy.

"Horrendous only because now you are seeing it" This is true in general. However I was not talking about bad stuff that happens to people, I was talking about how our failures resulted in causalities and undermine the "Just war" argument. The failures are real and not imagined, and the results are worse than under Saddam because they are our responsibility. I've talked already about how the sanctions caused misery for the Iraqis and are a counterweight to the argument against intervention.

"Great Evils" - Evil? Nuts. It's politics not evil. Everything is evil with you.

Iran's not benefited from Iraq? Hmm what do some academics think? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3704

You think outcome can be measured from body counts? What are the goals in Iraq? I had a friend go on at me about how Iraq was great because it really was always a plan to create a "meat grinder" and kill all the potential terrorists in the world. It is a meat grinder (accidentally), but it's not killing supply.

"You've failed the analysis of death itself." Shit that sounds serious!

Douglas in monetary terms an MSNBC article wrote (March 2006) that "Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely be more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion."

That's a lot of money. Containment did not cost anywhere near that much in $.

In other, much more important terms how much has it cost us? We have sacrificed lives, and I think lost strategically by aiding states like Iran by promoting anti-Americanism and fuelling a guerilla war against us. We never found WMD and we have helped create a failed state which, even if democratic, is eventually going to be pro-Iran, anti-Israeli and anti-American, because the population is.

Douglas - "could've served as a message to Lil Kim and those like him" is exactly what the theory of the war was all about (didn't a majority of the democrats seem to agree with the war at the start?). The neo-conservatives wanted to make a "New American Century". It wasn't the 'Defeatocrats' fault that the plan failed in its first assumptions. The defeatists exist because Iraq is a mess and some think it is more prudent to leave. Whatever the case an argument for invading North Korea could simply not exist after the reality of Iraq.

Smitty if I was living in Iraq and had a crack house next to me I would probably take some crack. Safer than talking to the police-mafia.

[Ymarsakar]

According to your Hannibal example the failure in Iraq is intentional and designed to lure in enemy states?

My attempts were designed to describe how your beliefs of failure are not important because they don't reflect any useful analysis or conclusions. You keep trying to communicate as if all your assumptions are already proven and should be accepted by me.

Iraq has a cost based relationship to success.

What kind of relationship? Indirect, direct, proportional, disproportional? Is it that the more resources you pour into Iraq, the higher your chances of defeat? Or how about the lower the cost of Iraq, the greater the chance of success?

I don't understand what the abstract and contextless fictional world you describe has to do with Iraq!

Spatial orientation allows a person to place problems in their proper context, by looking at what it connects to in realtime and realspace. If your inner thoughts do not connect properly and consistently with real world events and places, such as saying failure in Iraq is a given that everybody should believe in without argument, there is no real resolution for problems; regardless of how many problems there actually are or what they may be.

The war's theory after all was based upon a positive assumption, that there would be a free flow to liberal democracy.

If you are basing your presumption on folks like me, then how could you do it when you didn't even know I was around back when you made these presumptions? And how do you know that I believed that there would be a free flow to liberal democracy? You don't, it is something in contention, and I have not conceded it.

I was talking about how our failures resulted in causalities and undermine the "Just war" argument.

Again, ethics and meta-ethics aren't based upon whether something costs more or less. If something is right, it is right regardless of the costs or benefits. IF something is wrong, it is still wrong regardless of the costs or benefits derived.

This is a difference in philosophical axioms between you and me, Spark.

The failures are real and not imagined, and the results are worse than under Saddam because they are our responsibility.

That makes little sense, that somehow it is worse if bad things happen under a good regime than if it occured under a bad one; both in a general sense and a specific factual context. How are the results worse? Or is it just the case that when the good strives to gain the top, evil makes things very bad to take it down? Whereas if evil was at the top, like Saddam was, good can't be much bothered to do much of anything to change the status quo. Maybe that is it. Whether it is worse under the US or worse under Saddam, is meaningless. What matters is the forces of good and evil what both are doing in a specific context. It is not the short-term results that matter, but the long term results, the ultimate conclusions or resolutions of problems and goals.

I've talked already about how the sanctions caused misery for the Iraqis and are a counterweight to the argument against intervention.

That's another subject to argue about, of course. Because Walzer believes the Iraq War wasn't justified because sanctions were working, or rather sanctions with teeth such as no fly zones. Now you're saying that the sanctions caused misery for the Iraqis, and are a counterweight to the argument against intervention. Sanctions are part of the containment policy, without any sanctions there is no containment. Without containment, there is no counterweight to US military intervention. Not based upon a humanitarian model at least.

Everything is evil with you.

Some are stupid, not evil, you must admit that. I've already written and described somewhat my ethics system in Entropy and Death vs Strength and Life. While entropy is all around us, evil is what you do with it, evil is not entropy itself, though it sometimes shares similar characteristics. But then so does the good share characteristics with some destructive traits of entropy. (Atom bomb from science and used by the US, for example)

You think outcome can be measured from body counts?

You're projecting here Sparkle. You are the one that thinks Iraq's success or failure may be measured in body counts, because you're the one talking about how it is a "failure" because of how "worse" it is under the US than Saddam. It is how you think, not me. Just to remind you, but you said this not me.

Iraq has a cost based relationship to success.

Smitty if I was living in Iraq and had a crack house next to me I would probably take some crack. Safer than talking to the police-mafia.

There's me system of ethics, and then there is your system of ethics that you use to declare Iraq a win for terrorists and a loss for the US. You think you can get away without arguing that for long, Spark?

Okay my opinion is extremely clear. Iraq had clear goals. Those goals were based on false premises (not your false premises). They were (i) Iraq was a danger, (ii) Iraqi society should painlessly transfer to a Western friendly form of liberal democracy and become an ally, (iii) the success in Iraq could be projected to other unfriendly states, if you take these as given then invading Iraq would inevitably advance the national interest of the US and be a Just war.

Iraq has the same relationship of success to cost as any other war. It's a rational decision where