Iraq and the Just War Theory
I just read this very interesting article from Matt Flannagan: Iraq and the Just War Theory: Why I choose not to support the anti-war movement.
I think he makes a very simple and powerful argument, especially against those who oppose the Iraq invasion and war: If we base our morality upon Just War Theory, then the right thing for the peace activists to do is to turn their continual condemnation of George Bush to a condemnation of the Iraqi resistance.
Judged by the standards of Just War Theory, George Bush is significantly more justified in engaging in a war against Saddam than Saddam is in defending himself against George W. To the ‘peace movement’ Matt writes:
The peace movement should be picketing Iraq’s decision to fight, burning Iraqi flags demanding that Saddam step down, storming Iraq’s embassies etc. We should see hundreds of thousands of people marching denouncing Iraq.
…
It should call for the Iraqi leadership to put down its weapons and cease fighting an unjust war. Until it does many people even those who have doubts about the justice of Americas actions will remain skeptical of its goals. If not morally appalled at its selective blindness and lack of concern for the Iraq people.
Nice thinking Matt. Nice link to a page that corrects stupid thinking too!
Just War Theory is all very well, and sounds good. However, I would ask the following in respect to the 6 requirements needed to call a war “Just” by this theory:
1. Who decides what a “just cause” is? When religion is involved [especially] the word “just” is completely dependant upon your world view.
2. When does any nation have a lawfulful authority to wage war, and whose law do we judge this right by?
3. There is usually no such thing as a “last resort”, simply preferred resorts. If invading Iraq was a last resort what is a nuclear bomb? The resort after the last resort?
4. Who is the judge of the “possibility of waging war with a reasonable chance of success”? What is success and who determines it, by what guidelines is success measured? Success is dependant upon the original aim. (in Iraq this was removal of WMD, then when that was found lacking it was changed to “regime change to bring democracy”. No,luck there, sow whats next, control of oil flow? well, I guess that has been almost achieved…). If we don’t know the aim of waging a war (ie we were told it was WMD in Iraq, but obviously was not as they are still there and no WMD found) then how can we possibly judge the likeliness of a successful war?
5. To prevent evil we must agree on what evil is. One mans terrorist is another mans freedon fighter.
6. How is it possible to wage a war in a civilian area (eg a city) and at the same time use only “proportionate and discriminate” force? Any attempt at this would result in a quagmire within hours, which any invading army knows full well. Which is why Baghdad was bombed from the air. In that particular case “Just War” is surely an oxymoran.
How anyone like Matt Flannagin can write an entire article about Just War Theory when such a theory is a complete farce is beyond me?
God does.
God’s law.
You are mixing the judge with the executioner. It is judgment call as to whether or not to invade. How an invasion is executed determines whether a nuke is used or something else.
Good question. In the end, George Bush will be held accountable for his actions and Hitler for his. If there were no God, then anyone can be good, bad, commit genocide, help the poor or torture cats for fun with no ultimate justice. We are also responsible to God for who we vote for and all of our other actions.
Exactly. But as many philosophers has argued, evil is meaningless unless God exists. Dostoyevsky: “…if God does not exist, all things are permissible…”
The Judaeo-Christian worldview – and for that matter Just War Theory – condemns indiscriminate killing. US soldiers have been tried and sent to prison for practicing unjust war in Iraq. Yet, as Matt hints at, the critics of the Iraq war continue to condemn the US while remaining silent in their condemnation of the Iraqi behaviour such as blowing up civilians. Where are the myriads of protestors condemning the suicide murders?
Ask him — He has a blog here.
Lastly, you have not stated your worldview in your argument. Since you have one, why not explain why the Iraq war is wrong from your worldview.
Thanks Admin for your interesting comments
However I have some concerns with your responses;
You say that God decides what is “Just”. I ask you, whose God? These “Gods” seem to have conflicting world views, from your Christian God, to Mohammad or Isis or the wicca Goddess. All have differing opinions on war, while having only one thing in common - they each claim to be the only true god. So what it comes back to is which god a particular person follows, which basically takes the god out of the equation and leaves us with a solely human infulence. At the end of the day we must surely accept complete responsibility for our decisions to wage war, and not bear that responsibility off to a god, including justification.
The same goes for claiming thats Gods law is the law to be followed when realising the prerequisite that we must have lawful authority to wage war (re: Just War Theory). Does this also apply to Muslims who believe they have the lawful authority of Mahommad on their side when they attack USA or Israel, or is this a case of “Its OK for us to do it because we’re the good guys, but not OK for them cause they are evil ungodly peasants” etc…
Re: “You are mixing the judge with the executioner. It is judgment call as to whether or not to invade. How an invasion is executed determines whether a nuke is used or something else.”
I disagree with this also
I think surely in the case of Iraq war for example, that the judgement was indeed whether or not to invade. The US believed they could win a quick and decisive victory in Iraq. Had they thought it could result in the quagmire of death and misery that has been realised they would surley have rethought the decision. Ditto for Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Re: “US soldiers have been tried and sent to prison for practicing unjust war in Iraq.”
Surely the buck stops at the top, or at least at those ordering the indiscriminate aerial bombardments of Iraq. How can a simple soldier be tried while those at the top look us in the eye and claim to be fighting a just war, while all along ordering mass indiscriminate killings [effectively] via their F16’s and tommahawk cruise missiles.
Final thought: They behead; We do it with smart bombs…
You are right. It does come down to each person’s worldview. But, which worldview is true? Just because two people both claim to have the truth does not mean they are both right. The two worldviews must be critiqued using logic, tested for internal coherence, and tested against reality. This is why Islam – like atheism – should be rejected, because they both fail these tests dismally.
Francis Schaeffer used the term TRUE truth; this is appropriate as there are contradictory truth claims out there, but there are also TRUE truth claims.
Just war theory is built upon a Christian framework from my limited understanding, going back to Augustine around 400AD. Thus, it is built upon certain axioms such as respecting all life as much as possible.
I think the problem in this debate is that you are unable to bang a peg into the ground and stand firmly upon TRUE truth. You are left with relative truths, contradicting each other, and each equally valid. I feel sorry for you if this is the case because you would be standing in no-man’s-land, ultimately unable to make any objective truth claim at all.
But where does this lead to? If you cannot make an objective truth claim, all your complaints about wars become irrelevant. They are just preferences, like debating which vegetable tastes the best or what the best colour is. I note that you skipped answering my question about stating your own worldview and then defending your claims based upon that.
This agnostic position regarding truth also leaves a person unable to call evil what it is. It is all relative, right for me but wrong for you. When society goes far down that path, totalitarianism is surely just around the corner.
From last time:
“Lastly, you have not stated your worldview in your argument. Since you have one, why not explain why the Iraq war is wrong from your worldview.”
Hi Admin. Re: my worldwiew. Hmmm, this is a difficult one for even myself to answer, as it seems to be continuously moving, altering slightly this way and that as I learn and read and listen to others. Perhaps that is a difference between my way and that of religous peoples - Your way is pretty strictly guided by a book, mine is altered more by my conscience and thoughts. I guess you have faith and guidance in a way and I’m staggering in the dark without a torch trying to find my own way.
Hmmm. I’m sure that comment will bring a response! I don’t mean it to be derogitory in any way towards relign or its followers.
My worldwiew cannot be described in a few lines but I can probably best describe it by saying my God is Nature (Earth Mother? - wicca?) and my ideals are guided by what effects my actions have on nature itself - the earth the animals, (people included), the environment and the heartbeat of the planet. I believe it we look after all these things in a considerate and unselfish way as best we can then the Earth and its heartbeat will be strong and provide all we need for a good life. As far as afterlife, creation etc are concerned I’ve often tried to fathom some angle on these, but I think unless we are “told” how it it (ie bible etc) then we simply don’t possess the capacity to obtain this information.
To sum up, I like a simple life, try not to affect other in a detrimential way, and HATE the thought of my (or others) way of life being altered/hindered/endangered by the ways of religous fanatics (bin Laden, Bush etc). They have no rights to affect others lives with their religions.
Enjoyed your website and chat.
Here is one persons description of wicca which describes my worldview better than I managed above:
Wicca is a Neo-Pagan religion with many traditions that date to pre-Christian (and prehistoric) Earth religions. It is based on a deep respect for nature and the certain knowledge that we do not have the right to exploit it for our own gain. Wiccans are deeply concerned with conservation and ecology…..
That’s fine. I don’t feel that you are not insulting my beliefs either btw.
Ok, I almost got excited reading your response re worldviews because you understand such a lot of this, but then stop. You say that we cannot know unless we are “told”. This is exactly right! In Christian theology these is general revelation and special revelation. The former is available to all thru observing nature, the stars, the flowers and so on. These things are evidence of The Creator (Romans 1-3). But knowing about God Himself and His plans and purposes come only thru special revelation. Thus we cannot know about God with the book.
Now, you invited comment on your worldview, so I will offer some in the form of questions:
(i) How do you know it is true? What evidence do you have? Is there a book or some other form of revelation?
(ii) Could your desire for the quiet life, peace, harmony with others and so on be a reflection of God’s nature and also his original plan for the world pre-sin and -fall (Genesis 1-3)?
(iii) Do you believe there are moral values, rights and wrongs? If so, how do you derive them from your worldview?
(iv) If you can derive values from your worldview, are they binding upon others and if so, why?
(v) If you cannot derive values from your worldview, then what does that say about your claims about Iraq?
(vi) If your worldview is changing, how do you know that what you are opposing today will be what you accept in (say) another decade?
(vii) If your worldview has no claim to transcendent authority (e.g. it is just mere opinion and feelings), then why should anyone else care what your worldview causes you to think?
(viii) What does a “deep respect for nature and the certain knowledge that we do not have the right to exploit it for our own gain” mean? Who determines what part of nature we should respect? Should we respect the right of animals to kill each other? Are we animals, and therefore do we have the right to kill? Where does the “not have the right to exploit” come from? Who issues the rights? Are they transcendent or only personal preferences?
(ix) What is the point of saving nature since heat-death awaits us all in a few billion years anyway?
(x)What hope does your worldview offer you?
I better stop before I get too excited
Hi admin
I have responded to some of Murray’s comments on my blog at http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-on-iraq-and-just-war-theory.html
Here I would just note that Murray’s comments are essentially an expression of relativism. They are of the “who is to decide whats right and wrong?” or one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist variety. I could go on here but a couple of things are worth noting. Relativism of this sort has been repeatedly shown to be indefensible in the literature it is ( in Murray’s terms) a complete farce and the standard problems are seen in Murray’s comments.
Murray for example, suggests that one cannot judge what is evil, and asks who’s to decide. Yet note that he in several instances criticizes the actions of the US in invading Iraq and for there conduct in Iraq. This is inconsistent, if no one can decide what’s just then the peace movement can’ decide either. If there is no way to tell what is evil then there is no way to tell that the US’s actions are evil. Note that in criticizing the US the peace movement claims that the standards of conduct regarding violence that they uphold apply to the Bush administration, even though this administration disagrees with them. Hence Murray maintains a objectivist stance on ethics, when he addresses the actions of the US but then expounds relativism when its Iraq or the peace movement being criticized.
Second, Murray’s use of relativism to criticize me actually is self defeating. Murray’s conclusion is that the just war theory farcical and hence a mistaken or erroneous understanding of morality and ethics. But his criticism is based on the idea that no one can know what is a mistaken or correct view of ethics is. The obvious problem is this: if no one can say what is a correct or incorrect view of ethics, Murray cannot say the just war theory is an incorrect view of ethics.
I’ll note a final incoherence in Murray’s post note he says
*To sum up, I like a simple life, try not to affect other in a detrimential way, and HATE the thought of my (or others) way of life being altered/hindered/endangered by the ways of religous fanatics (bin Laden, Bush etc). They have no rights to affect others lives with their religions.Enjoyed your website and chat.*
Note here Murray claims that religious people have *no right* to do certain things. Yet he has just objected that no one can say what is or is not just.