Just war theory and the invasion of Iraq, part I
As part of my philosophy as a writer I believe in being blunt, so let me begin this essay with as blunt a statement as I can: I believe we must concede the possibility that the war in Iraq was, in its origins, a just war. Do I have your attention now?
In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 I found myself, along with many other citizens of the world, trying to come to grips with the possibility of war. Canadians in general were largely against the idea of war, and sometimes peppered their opinions with crude anti-Bush (or even anti-American) comments. This only forced me to go deeper, because I hate ad hominem arguments. The seriousness of what was being contemplated, I felt, left no room for the “luxury” of uncharity. And as a Catholic priest, and therefore a moral reference point for many people, I knew I would have two responsibilities: to remind people to cool down the uncharitable comments because, however mild, they are sinful; and to come to my own moral evaluation of the possibility of war, to be able to guide people as they themselves were facing our collective uncertain future. As it is, undertaking the first usually reminded me of the necessity of the second, because in the charged atmosphere of the time as soon as I (gently) suggested that the rhetoric be cooled I was often accused of being a pro-Bush partisan. Both priesthood and politics truly do leave no one indifferent.
When I say “my own moral evaluation of the possibility of war,” let me hasten to add that I am not proposing that each person has the right to make up his or her own morality as they go through life, as though it could be done without reference to Truth. I honestly submit to the magisterium of the Church, including its teaching on just war doctrine. But the teaching of the Church on the possibility of a morally just war is different from the judgement of the Church as to whether a particular war is possibly morally just. The former is theoretical, while the latter depends of the application of that theory to the facts on the ground. This allows for the possibility of a certain legitimate diversity of opinion, something even the Church recognizes, and while I do hold the Pope in the highest regard I didn’t want to just “toe the party line” on this one. As it is, I don’t.
So why do I believe the war was possibly just? It all began in a conversation in the living room, chatting with someone opposed to the war. I proposed the following thought experiment:
Fr. Tom: “Suppose you lived on a certain street, and it came to your attention that a particular man living in one of the houses on that street regularly abused his family in the cruelest ways: beating his wife, torturing his pets, even causing some of his children to mysteriously “disappear” or simply executing them outright. These are not merely rumours: you have evidence that these things happen. Is it morally permissible for you as a neighbour to stand at the sidelines and do nothing while the torture continues?”
Respondent: “Well, no. That would be a sin of omission. I would contact the police.”
Fr. Tom: “But what if there were no police? Suppose you live in one of those parts of the world where there is no effective public authority. What would you do then?”
Respondent: “I would contact the neighbours and see if we could do something about it together.”
Fr. Tom: “Suppose the neighbours agree to meet, and decide to send a delegation to privately encourage the torturer to cease his evil ways. But the visit has no effect, and the abuse continues. What then?”
Respondent: “Well…”
Fr. Tom: “You could try and cause him some pain by affecting his lifestyle. For example, you could block his driveway, making it much harder to go to the grocery story and get food, or to get to work and earn money.”
Respondent: “Those sound like good ideas.”
Fr. Tom: “What would you do, however, if you discovered that he worked from home, and some of the neighbours were in fact profiting from the scheme by smuggling in restricted goods and smuggling out the results of his work? What would you do if you discovered that the torturer wasn’t the one going hungry, but simply his wife and children? What would you do if more and more of the neighbours were using this ineffective sanction as a bella figura to conceal their own lack of appetite for action?”
Respondent: “Well, I suppose we’d just have to go in stop the man ourselves.”
Fr. Tom: “But there is no appetite for action. Some people are actually profiting from the status quo. Some of your allies are outright refusing to acknowledge that the real problem in the first place is the tyrant of that house, and have pledged to veto any attempt at community action. What is your moral obligation then?”
Respondent: “I suppose I give up. I don’t see what I can do all by myself.”
Fr. Tom: “But suppose you could do something. Suppose you live in the largest, wealthiest house on the block, and have a well-equipped and well-trained private security force at your disposal for the defence of your house. While that force is meant to protect your own house, you also know that if you sent it over to the house of the torturer — even if it is done over the protests of your other neighbours, and even if you know it will cost you in terms of cash and casualties — ultimately your force has an excellent chance of being ultimately victorious and will rid that family of their tyrannical head once and for all. What is your moral obligation then?”
Respondent: “I suppose I must then order an intervention to protect the lives of the innocent. But the war in Iraq was different!”
Fr. Tom: “How so? Wasn’t it a case of a nation ruled by a tyrant? Isn’t it true that there is no one-world police force with the right to intervene? Isn’t it true that sanctions caused great misery to the citizens of Iraq, but that others profited by them? Isn’t it true that the international community, led by France’s veto at the Security Council, intended to block any military attempt to intervene? Isn’t it true that the U.S.A. is a superpower, and is the only power capable of making a difference on its own in this case? And if all these facts are true, isn’t it true that it would be even more morally heinous for the U.S.A. to *not* lead the charge to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein?”
I have only heard two worthwhile replies to this question, and both reason the war in Iraq was unjust because it was hypocritical. They are worth examining.
The first reply is that the invasion was hypocritical because while the U.S.A. chose to intervene in Iraq, it has ignored most tyrants in other nations or even supported them. Heck, it even supported Saddam Hussein’s regime for a time. But this argument does not hold. Is a police officer disqualified from stopping any speeders because he does not stop every speeder? Of course not. Does the fact that we have committed sins in the past morally disqualify us from doing the good later? If so, the world is doomed. To be sure, such behaviour can be undertaken hypocritically, but none of this should affect our objective moral evaluation of the facts before our eyes.
The second reply is that the invasion was hypocritical because while the U.S.A. perhaps did do the right thing in ousting Saddam Hussein, it did it for the wrong reasons. The accusation that this was really all about oil, for example, falls into this category. This is the more serious charge, and deserves closer treatment. Under Catholic moral teaching for an act to be meritorious it must be both materially just (the act itself must be good) and it must be formally just (done with the correct intention). This is why I state the war was only potentially just: if President Bush’s true motives in finally ordering the invasion really were unjust then the war, as a moral choice, was unjust. But to be honest, this is a matter for the President’s private conscience: public policy is generally much more concerned with the material justice of the act, than the formal justice. Even if we do the right thing for the wrong reasons, it still remains the right thing to do. And as I have pointed out in my little dialogue above, the conditions for the invasion to have been the right thing were definitely present. Even more, it would have been an injustice to delay the invasion!
Finally, I feel I must touch upon the question of the weapons of mass destruction. The original stated reason to go to war has become a joke — but this is no laughing matter. The very real possibility exists that the population of the world was lied to, in order to garner support for the war. And nobody likes to be lied to. More than that, it would be a case of doing evil (violating the Eighth Commandment against lying) for a good end (stopping a criminal), and doing evil for a good end is never permissible — it only spreads more evil (which, it would seem, is in evidence a-plenty). But in all honesty, the bottom line remains that prior to the war, Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator, and now it isn’t. The fact that the rule of law has not yet been fully established points to an unrealistic view for how to “win the peace,” but does not really touch on the justice of the invasion itself. And how interesting it is that the reason being advance today to justify the war boils down to one thing: “We got rid of a brutal dictator.” Because that was the only possible justification in the first place.
More to come in Part II…..