06-27-2008, 07:29 PM
Quote:For discussion, consider Professor Brian Orend's proposed jus ad bellum Just War Tenets -
- JWT 1. Just cause. A state must have a just cause in launching a war. The causes most frequently mentioned by the just war tradition include: self-defence by a state from external attack; the protection of innocents within its borders; and, in general, vindication for any violation of its two core state rights: political sovereignty and territorial integrity.<>
- JWT 2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of those just causes listed in JWT 1. It cannot legitimately employ the cloak of a just cause to advance other intentions it might have, such as ethnic hatred or the pursuit of national glory.<>
- JWT 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s).<>
- JWT 4. Last resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular through diplomatic negotiation.<>
- JWT 5. Probability of success. A state may not resort to war if it can reasonably foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim here is to block violence which is going to be futile.<>
- JWT 6. (Macro-) proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the expected universal good to accrue from its prosecuting the war against the expected universal evils that will result. Only if the benefits seem reasonably proportional to the costs may the war action proceed.<>
[st]The tenets are discussed in Professor Orend book, The Morality of War, and I referenced them from an article in the Military Law Review - Vol 186, Page 128.
So, let's go down the list. Looking at the article, I find right above the quoted part that the violation of any of the tenets leads to a violation of Jus Ad Bellum, that is to say, that your war is illegitimate. Now, my argument here is that the UN charter was violated, not some arbitrary set of principles, but these seem solid enough to run with as a substitute.
1) Just cause. Of the "frequently cited" ones, the US can claim exactly zero. Self-defence from external attack? No. Protection of innocents within its borders? Quite a stretch, maybe if Powell's speech wasn't made of swiss cheese, but as it stands, no. Violation of political sovereignty? No. Violation of territorial integrity? No. Other possibilities might include that an ally was attacked. Also, no.
2) Right intention. On this one, the US isn't even close. Ulterior motives are clearly everywhere, signalled a decade in advance by senior administration officials through PNAC. Depending on the interpretation of GWB's personal mindset, one could even argue that this has some odour of the worst possible kind of war, a war of personal aggrandisement.
3) Proper authority and public declaration. The second is no issue here. The first is an obvious violation. The proper authority is clearly the UN Security Council, and the US did a very public end run around its authority.
4) Last resort. Considering there was another resort already on the table at the UN, and that the majority of the globe was in favour of a pressure-and-inspections regime rather than an invasion, I think it is laughable to say that the US jumped this particular hurdle. At the very worst, there was no urgency to the war; even if it was inevitable, it was hardly imminent. As my brother predicted back in 2002, "they're going to war in March, because the weather is good then." Lo and behold, as March approached, the diplomacy mysteriously ran out of time, and the invasion happened. Plot the data points, draw the line, it's a pretty simple one.
5) Probability of Success. Also a failure. Iraq is, and was predicted to be, a more dangerous centre for international terrorism now than before the war, and is descending into sectarian violence and outright civil war.
6) Proportionality. On the one side, a vicious-but-powerless dictator was dethroned. On the other, a civil war was started, with unpredictable and dangerous implications for Turkey, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. The reputation of one of the world's great powers was dragged through the mud, representing a tremendous propaganda victory for its enemies. A new generation of jihadists have been trained and battle-hardened. I think this one is overall a loss, but I suppose it's at least debatable.
Given that failure on any one of these points is a failure overall, and yet the US fails each one separately, I think it is fair to say that they back up my argument and not yours.
-Jester