Infinite MonkeysNote: Introduction and table of contents here.
First we must evaluate if our entry into war was just (jus ad bellum)
Definition: Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g. a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;
Evaluation - Afghanistan: It can reasonably be argued that our actions in Afghanistan satisfy both criteria for Just Cause. The Taliban was actively involved in funding, supporting, and hosting the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bombing Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power was a defensive action in response to those attacks, which also had the effect of correcting the "grave public evil" that was training, funding, and protecting international terrorists.
Evaluation - Iraq: This is much more difficult. Iraq had insignificant, at best, ties to the 9/11 attacks. They had not meaningfully attacked us (i.e. anything other than shooting at our planes that were flying in their airspace) since the first Gulf War.
Some would argue that we were correcting a "grave public evil" because of the activities Saddam Hussein carried out against his own people. But this would be both hypocrisy and sophistry: We sat by and ignored and/or funded Hussein's government for decades knowing full well what kind of horrors he was engaged in. Likewise, our official justifications for invading Iraq did not address these issues at all - they have only been used as a retroactive justification. The "Iraq is a better place now that he's gone" argument is a good example of this retroactive justification. Additionally, the fact that we chose Iraq to invade rather than any of a dozen other countries engaged in massive internal human rights violations gives the lie to this argument. Our motivation for entering Iraq was not to correct a grave public evil, it was just a potential side-benefit of the invasion.
Evaluation - Other: "Global Terrorism" is so ambiguously defined that evaluation of this criteria is difficult. Any "defensive" action in response to 9/11 was certainly proportionally resolved in Afghanistan. Correcting the "grave public evil" of Islamic terror possibly meets the criteria.
Next Chapter: Comparative Justice
Posted by RobbL at December 26, 2005 09:55 AM>Evaluation - Iraq: This is much more difficult. Iraq had insignificant, at best, ties to the 9/11 attacks.
True.
>They had not meaningfully attacked us (i.e. anything other than shooting at our planes that were flying in their airspace) since the first Gulf War.
Incorrect. Their attack on coalition aircraft was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement and fully justified any degree of resumption of hostilities. Additionally, Hussein attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993.
>Some would argue that we were correcting a "grave public evil" because of the activities Saddam Hussein carried out against his own people. But this would be both hypocrisy and sophistry: We sat by and ignored and/or funded Hussein's government for decades knowing full well what kind of horrors he was engaged in.
Two arguments. Our foreign policy at that time (and up to 9/11/01) was focused on supporting strong regimes in order to promote stability; supporting Iraq in its war against Iran was a reflection of our desire to support the country better able to stabilize the region. That foreign policy has changed. In addition, Hussein's abuses were chronicled and publicized in an attempt to change that behavior short of any use of force to do the same.
>Likewise, our official justifications for invading Iraq did not address these issues at all - they have only been used as a retroactive justification.
Incorrect. Reread Bush's State of the Union Speech. Although made after the invasion, it summarizes the arguments made before the invasion. These arguments included addressing the Iraqi regime's abuses.
>The "Iraq is a better place now that he's gone" argument is a good example of this retroactive justification. Additionally, the fact that we chose Iraq to invade rather than any of a dozen other countries engaged in massive internal human rights violations gives the lie to this argument.
Incorrect. The difficulty in applying a theory in the real world does not invalidate it. As a matter of fact, all of these other countries engaged in abuses have had their abuses chronicled and detailed in an attempt to change their behavior short of invasion. Inasmuch as they have not, and cannot be swayed by such devices, then I agree with you that invasion is absolutely necessary.
>Our motivation for entering Iraq was not to correct a grave public evil, it was just a potential side-benefit of the invasion.
Incorrect. As noted above, the correction of grave public evils was indeed a motive for invasion. Since this fits your definition of Just Cause, then your evaluation wrt Iraq must therefore conclude that our actions in Iraq support the Just Cause theory and are, therefore, just.
MakeMineRed
Posted by: MakeMineRed at January 7, 2006 08:23 AM>Their attack on coalition aircraft was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement and fully justified any degree of resumption of hostilities.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. They were firing on aircraft flying in their own airspace, partly in response to economic sanctions that were NOT part of the cease-fire agreement.
That does not "justif[y] any degree of resumption of hostilities" - at best, it justifies the actions that we took at the time - taking out military targets in a proportional response.
>Additionally, Hussein attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993.
And that justifies us invading the country and killing thousands of people (including a large number of civilians) over ten years later? I don't think so. By the way, the word "attempted" means something here.
>Our foreign policy at that time (and up to 9/11/01) was focused on supporting strong regimes in order to promote stability; supporting Iraq in its war against Iran was a reflection of our desire to support the country better able to stabilize the region.
And who were the architects of the original foreign policy? I seem to remember a few folks in the current administration being instrumental in forming that policy. A policy that results in mass murder should not be rewarded with a promotion.
>That foreign policy has changed.
That hardly justifies an invasion punishing someone for doing what we paid them to do.
>In addition, Hussein's abuses were chronicled and publicized in an attempt to change that behavior short of any use of force to do the same.
And the abuses of the North Koreans, Saudis, Israelis, Chinese, etc. have not been chronicled and publicized? We did not personally focus on Saddam's evils because we hoped he would change his behavior. On the contrary, we emphasized violations that were either in the past, or that we knew would not change in the hope of having a "justification" up our sleeve in the event we found it useful to invade.
To re-iterate: we have shown that we don't really care that much about human rights abuses, unless "fighting them" can be used as a justification for military action that fits our strategic goals. cf. our Central American foreign policy in the 1980's.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at January 7, 2006 11:46 AM>Sorry, that doesn't wash. They were firing on aircraft flying in their own airspace, partly in response to economic sanctions that were NOT part of the cease-fire agreement.
>That does not "justif[y] any degree of resumption of hostilities" - at best, it justifies the actions that we took at the time - taking out military targets in a proportional response.
Incorrect. The no-fly zones were established in response to violations of the cease-fire agreement and to protect elements of Iraqi society targeted for reprisal by Hussein after the war. The economic sanctions were also established in response to violations of the cease-fire agreement. These actions were among the least that could be taken, considering that these violations of the cease-fire absolutely justified the coalition's resumption of any degree of hostility.
>And that (Bush assassination attempt) justifies us invading the country and killing thousands of people (including a large number of civilians) over ten years later? I don't think so. By the way, the word "attempted" means something here.
Your statement was that Iraq had not meaningfully attacked us since Gulf War 1. Their attempts to kill coalition pilots and their attempt on Bush's life constituted meaningful attacks and, along with other violations of the cease-fire, indicated that Hussein was still a danger.
>And who were the architects of the original foreign policy? I seem to remember a few folks in the current administration being instrumental in forming that policy. A policy that results in mass murder should not be rewarded with a promotion.
I am no historian, but IIRC, Kissinger is associated strongly with that foreign policy. Kissinger held no position in either of the Bush presidencies, IIRC. In any case, a policy designed to ensure stability in the face of the Russian threat is no longer relevant.
>(Our foreign policy changes). . hardly justif(y) an invasion punishing someone for doing what we paid them to do
Hussein had numerous opportunities to prevent the invasion. He turned them all down.
>And the abuses of the North Koreans, Saudis, Israelis, Chinese, etc. have not been chronicled and publicized?
Of course they are. I said so in my previous statement. We publicize the abuses in an attempt to force changes short of war.
>We did not personally focus on Saddam's evils because we hoped he would change his behavior. On the contrary, we emphasized violations that were either in the past, or that we knew would not change in the hope of having a "justification" up our sleeve in the event we found it useful to invade.
Our government's publicization of abuses in other countries certainly has a self-serving aspect, but not in the sense of setting them up for a fall, or to use as a "gotcha". We hope that the reform efforts result in a government that is less inimical to its neighbors, to us, and to the world. As stated above, Hussein had numerous opportunities to prevent the invasion. He took advantage of none of them. As we have seen, his abuses were continuous, right up the moment of invasion.
Again, the case for just war has been proved, according to your definition.
MakeMineRed
Posted by: MakeMineRed at January 8, 2006 07:35 AM>Their attempts to kill coalition pilots and their attempt on Bush's life constituted meaningful attacks and, along with other violations of the cease-fire, indicated that Hussein was still a danger.
I think my new post on "Comparative Justice" comes into play here, as will "Proportionality". Regardless, a 10-year old failed assassination attempt, along with wholly unsuccessful attempts to shoot down our pilots do not constitute a "grave public evil," nor does a wholesale invasion of a country wash as a "defensive" move against these actions. This is why I said we were not "meaningfully" attacked. Hussein was not meaningfully complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and the other items don't qualify as anything other than "skirmishes."
>Kissinger is associated strongly with that foreign policy.
The "few folks" I'm referring to specifically include Rumsfeld and Cheney, who were neck-deep in sponsoring Hussein during previous administrations.
>Hussein had numerous opportunities to prevent the invasion. He turned them all down.
And every opportunity required him to sacrifice his own national sovereignty in a way we would NEVER do. His "opportunities" were not anything like withdrawing troops from a contested region, they were allowing the UN virtually unfettered access to his military facilities.
>his abuses were continuous, right up the moment of invasion.
I think you mis-use the term "abuse" here. Gassing the Kurds was a "grave public evil," but it occurred a full twenty years prior to the invasion. The "abuses" he was engaged in "right up [to] the moment of invasion" were refusing weapons inspections, attempting (but failing) to shoot down planes in the "no-fly" zones, and I believe there was still some torture of political dissidents (not Americans, by the way). This hardly justifies 30,000 (at least) dead Iraqis, many (if not most) of them civilians.
>Again, the case for just war has been proved, according to your definition.
As I indicate above, I still don't believe there was "Just Cause" argument to invade Iraq. But even if there was, the case for just war involves many other criteria. As I will attempt to show, I believe the Iraq war fails several of these tests, including both "Comparative Justice" and "Proportionality."
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at January 8, 2006 06:46 PM> Regardless, a 10-year old failed assassination attempt, along with wholly unsuccessful attempts to shoot down our pilots do not constitute a "grave public evil," nor does a wholesale invasion of a country wash as a "defensive" move against these actions. This is why I said we were not "meaningfully" attacked. Hussein was not meaningfully complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and the other items don't qualify as anything other than "skirmishes."
Hussein wasn't playing pattycakes. He wanted to kill coalition pilots. He wanted to kill Bush. That he didn't is no indication that he was a teddy bear. These elements, along with others, did constitute a public evil. Our responses were indeed measured and proportional. That they led to a second war is a failing of Hussein.
>The "few folks" I'm referring to specifically include Rumsfeld and Cheney, who were neck-deep in sponsoring Hussein during previous administrations.
Yes, I thought so. But that doesn't change the fact that our foreign policy has changed in response to a different type of threat.
>And every opportunity required him to sacrifice his own national sovereignty in a way we would NEVER do. His "opportunities" were not anything like withdrawing troops from a contested region, they were allowing the UN virtually unfettered access to his military facilities.
He lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to the cease-fire terms. Allowing access to weapons facilities and accounting for all WMD's to coalition forces and to the UN, under the terms of the cease-fire, would seem to be a small price to pay to get the coalition forces out in order to secretely rebuild the WMD programs. He chose differently.
>I think you mis-use the term "abuse" here. Gassing the Kurds was a "grave public evil," but it occurred a full twenty years prior to the invasion. The "abuses" he was engaged in "right up [to] the moment of invasion" were refusing weapons inspections, attempting (but failing) to shoot down planes in the "no-fly" zones, and I believe there was still some torture of political dissidents (not Americans, by the way). This hardly justifies 30,000 (at least) dead Iraqis, many (if not most) of them civilians.
You are correct in that torture of Iraqi citizens without cause was endemic in Iraq right up to the invasion. Also, in addition to the gassing of the Kurds in the mid-80's, Hussein killed tens of thousands of the dissidents who rose up in Iraq after Gulf War 1 - their mass graves are still being unearthed. He also attacked an indigenous Iraqi population by draining the marshes and swamps they relied on for their livelihood. Regarding the 30K number: Bush used that number to respond to a question concerning all Iraqis killed since the invasion, not just civilians. There has been much analysis of strictly civilian deaths since the invasion with numbers ranging from 1K to 100K. Two things: all of the analyses with higher numbers count terrorists as civilians and count terrorist-induced deaths as coalition-caused. In addition, these deaths need not have occurred if Hussein had adhered to the cease-fire terms.
MakeMineRed
Posted by: MakeMineRed at January 9, 2006 06:40 AM>Regarding the 30K number: Bush used that number to respond to a question concerning all Iraqis killed since the invasion, not just civilians. There has been much analysis of strictly civilian deaths since the invasion with numbers ranging from 1K to 100K. Two things: all of the analyses with higher numbers count terrorists as civilians and count terrorist-induced deaths as coalition-caused. In addition, these deaths need not have occurred if Hussein had adhered to the cease-fire terms.
Iraq Body Count places the number of civilian deaths in the 27K-31K range. They do not include terrorists, but they do include terrorist-induced deaths and deaths as a result of the "breakdown of law and order," both of which are our responsibility to prevent under both the Geneva Convention and the Hague.
Even if you do not accept the larger figures, the count of civilian deaths directly attributed to the "major combat" phase of hostilities is over 7200. I'm guessing their surviving family members will take little comfort in the claim that their deaths "need not have occurred if Hussein had adhered to the cease-fire terms." I will re-iterate: America suffered zero casualties at the hand of Saddam Hussein during the five years prior to invasion. Our response? 7200 Iraqi civilian deaths during the major combat phase.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at January 9, 2006 09:14 AM>Iraq Body Count places the number of civilian deaths in the 27K-31K range. They do not include terrorists, but they do include terrorist-induced deaths and deaths as a result of the "breakdown of law and order," both of which are our responsibility to prevent under both the Geneva Convention and the Hague.
Again, terrorist-caused deaths are wrongly attributed to coalition forces in Iraq Body Count's analysis. As this site (http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm) points out, an astonishingly high percentage of the civilian casualties reported at the Iraq Body Count site are adult males: 90% in a country with almost half of its population under 18. From that, as well as other caveats regarding the timing of the casualties reported, the author is led to a figure of approx. 4600 civilian casualties caused by coalition forces, with only approx. 1000 occurring since the fall of Baghdad. In his comments, a reader notes that his own statistical analysis supports these results.
>Even if you do not accept the larger figures, the count of civilian deaths directly attributed to the "major combat" phase of hostilities is over 7200. I'm guessing their surviving family members will take little comfort in the claim that their deaths "need not have occurred if Hussein had adhered to the cease-fire terms." I will re-iterate: America suffered zero casualties at the hand of Saddam Hussein during the five years prior to invasion. Our response? 7200 Iraqi civilian deaths during the major combat phase.
And I will reiterate: their deaths need not have occurred had Hussein adhered to the cease-fire terms. Nor need the deaths of coalition personnel have occurred. And, as the LogicTimes sites points out, whatever figure you choose, 7200, 4600, or even 30,000, it is a drastic decline from the monthly average totted up by Hussein's regime over 24 years.
MakeMineRed
Posted by: MakeMineRed at January 10, 2006 08:04 AM