Does US Airstrike in Iraq Violate Just War Doctrine?

[phil3]

I believe the strike meet all four of the just war doctrine. Trump did nothing wrong.

 

[Theo520]

Just looked up the stats for “nuclear test” - missile launches, tests, etc:

74 tests by NK under Obama (8 years).
40 tests by NK under Trump (3 years).

NK officially rescinds nuclear limitation under Trump, and threatens to perform actual nuclear detonation tests.

You decide.

many of those tests were in 2017, before US change in strategy was implemented.

You can read the details here

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

 

[phil3]

Trump doesnt need congressional approval. He also doesnt have to inform them. That being said, I believe that congress needs to end the war powers act and to several limit action that any president may take unless an war has been declared.

 

[Theo520]

Trump doesnt need congressional approval. He also doesnt have to inform them. That being said, I believe that congress needs to end the war powers act and to several limit action that any president may take unless an war has been declared.

That would definitely end the US role as global policeman.

It would lead do more chaos but might be a good thing as other regional interests step up their involvement.

 

[PetraG]

Trump doesnt need congressional approval. He also doesnt have to inform them. That being said, I believe that congress needs to end the war powers act and to several limit action that any president may take unless an war has been declared.

Did I miss the time the President publicly announced to the world that he intended to capture or kill Qassem Soleimani? When was that?

If there was no defiance sent, this was just an assassination. It may have a precedent, but such an act has no moral defense. It is another black mark on the moral history of the United States government.

If Iran were to declare their intention to assassinate in retaliation, what possible moral theory in the world could forbid them? There is none. It would only be an eye for an eye.

After this surprise assassination, what could stop our enemies from deeming our President or the US military leaders who support him to be an imminent and mortal threat to their leadership?

Our President has openly left behind even the pretense of moral boundaries on his powers or the powers of the United States. It is an utter outrage. He has reduced us to the same level as the terrorists that he claims to be protecting us from.

Any course that involves the US stepping aside is going to result in a lot of people dying. That’s why I always laugh at people who think they’re better off without our intervention. The US pulling out of world affairs would benefit ourselves more than anyone.

If this ill-advised and morally-indefensible assassination doesn’t result in a lot of unannounced attacks on us and our leadership, I will be utterly astonished.

I believe the strike meet all four of the just war doctrine. Trump did nothing wrong.

Expect Iran to use the same theory to justify whatever they do to us in the future.

This strike will do nothing whatsoever to re-establish peace anywhere or with anyone. It will do the opposite. I don’t see how it can be rationally argued that this was a just action.

 

[PetraG]

Let’s see

The Dems gave Iran $1.6 billion in pallets of cash

The Dems gave Trump two articles of impeachment

And Donald Trump gave Iran justification to do whatever they want in retaliation.

Does the killing of 600 solders and countless civilian lives justify killing an Iran architect of these killings is another way of thinking about this post.

I’ve been asking when the President said he’d put a price on this guy’s head.
What would you call it when one nation takes out the political or military leadership of another nation with no defiance sent?

It is an act of war. It’s Pearl Harbor. That’s how it feels to them. It is how we would take it if someone came in and took out our Secretary of Defense or the chair of the Joint Chiefs with no warning.

If Congress has ever given that kind of power to the President, that needs to end. Even if the President legally has the power, though, there is no question that he does not morally have the power. No way.

 

[Theo520]

Expect Iran to use the same theory to justify whatever they do to us in the future.

Do you think they haven’t already targeted generals and senior officials in Iraq.

Rockets go regularly into the “green zone”

 

[PetraG]

President Trump: did he or did he not give notice that the US government intended to kill or capture Qassem Soleimani?

 

[PetraG]

That is also not a moral justification.

I’m not saying the assassination would be justified if there had been explicit warning that the President intended to do it as soon as he government had the opportunity.

I’m saying the act was particularly repugnant because it was done without warning.* I don’t care if it was ordered by a Republican, a Democrat, a Green or a Magenta. It was not morally defensible. It was an abuse of the power of the United States of America.

(*) as far as I know, since I don’t keep track of the President’s notoriously belligerent Twitter feed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

AFAIK, the just war doctrine does not allow for America or Britain to conduct a war or to support the overthrow of a legitimate government leader because his country has decided to nationalize its oil industry.

It was believed that Mossadegh was colluding with the Soviet Union. Right or wrong, that was the belief at the time. There is no question that the king at the time had power to divest him of power. He fired Mossadegh, but the latter refused to leave.

There may not be exact statistics available, but please see the information given in the above post (approx #58) referencing a report in the Scientific American blog network.

I don’t know that we can trust blog information. There are two main sources of information, one being the Lancet report whose source was actually Crowdstrike, and a governmental report. The two are hugely different, but neither (to my knowledge) specifies the number of children killed by U.S. forces. Given that U.S. forces were charged with avoiding civilian casualties and the terrorist forces were not, the likelihood is that the U.S. caused toll was quite small.

 

[EndTimes]

Many people see the assassination of the top military officer of a sovereign nation as an act of war, whether or not it was declared to be a war by Congress.

Many people have seen many ongoing military actions on “both sides” as acts of war…
Just War Doctrine? Connects with the Catholic Church…
AND … What does the Pope think about Trump, and, this latest incident?

He has NOT declared Trump’s Actions as “Just” !

The Facts are:

Dec 2019 — According to a Jesuit journal — Pope Francis has compared U.S. President Donald Trump to the murderous King Herod who massacred innocent children in ancient Palestine while trying to kill the baby Jesus…

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Jan 2019 - Pope’s response to the US Airstrike.

Head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has declared his position on the brewing tensions in the Middle East following the assassination of Iranian army General, Qassem Soleimani by the US government.

Trump had issued a strong warning to Iran, threatening to hit 52 Iranian sites “very hard” if the Middle East country attacked Americans or United States assets.
Trump’s threat came after Iran earlier said it had identified 32 US sites to strike in retaliation for the killing of Soleimani.

The Pope called for dialogue and restraint while speaking at the Sunday Angelus prayer at the Vatican . He warned that war will only bring death and destruction. … He spoke of a terrible air of tension that could now be felt in many parts of the world. … “I call on all sides to keep the flame of dialogue and self-restraint alight and ward off the shadow of hostility,” he said. … “War only brings death and destruction.”

 

[PetraG]

I also don’t find you condemning HRC or Obama in Libya as act of war in which case there is no basis to condemn any other President as committing act of war for similar act

Oh, sorry, let me clarify. When I write “I don’t care if it was ordered by a Republican, a Democrat, a Green or a Magenta. It was not morally defensible” and " It may have a precedent, but such an act has no moral defense. It is another black mark on the moral history of the United States government," I would think that implies I am not making excuses for anybody, including Barack Obama or HRC.

This is a Christian forum, not a political forum, right? Well, morals don’t give mulligans depending on political party or political expediency or any other kind of expediency.

I would think this is a fairly straight-forward question. A direct (rather than evasive) answer would not have the word “bayonet” in it.

What would you call it when one nation takes out the political or military leadership of another nation with no defiance sent?

I’d say I’d call it an act of war. The President is trying to ignite a war, whether he’s with it enough to realize that or not. If Iran takes it as an act of war, I don’t know who could blame them.

 

[Sarcelle]

The US should pull out of NATO and the UN.

 

[pnewton]

We’ve been at war with Iran for decades, this is just the latest action.

Again, no we haven’t. Only Congress can declare war.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Dec 2019 — According to a Jesuit journal — Pope Francis has compared U.S. President Donald Trump to the murderous King Herod who massacred innocent children in ancient Palestine while trying to kill the baby Jesus…

I would want to see this source, since I doubt even Jesuit journals would say such a thing. Nor do I think Pope Francis would say such a thing.

 

[PetraG]

Whether or not congress has declared war, we have been fighting against Iran for decades. Soldiers on both sides have died, our governments are opposed to one another. It may be a war fought in the shadows but the war is being fought regardless.

If we stick just to your claim that because congress hasn’t declared war, then the US hasn’t been at war since 1945. The last time congress officially declared war was in 1942. I don’t think you’re going to argue that we’ve not been at war since then.

OK, so, other countries should just stand notified that they ought to expect that their leaders might be assassinated and their cultural sites targeted for elimination, if the President of the United States feels inclined to do it. He has the power, and he’ll do it if he sees fit. We’re going on record as being “that kind” of a nation…kind of like Napoléon’s France.

Good grief, even the atheists and the pagans have standards that are higher than that.

You’re right, about this, though: American Presidents don’t seem to let the inconvenience that they do not have the authority to declare a war stop them. They simply initiate a provocative action and poof! we’re at war again!!

 

[pnewton]

Rather than risk a petty retaliation, I will not quote anyone, but the thread here is on the US Airstrike in Iraq. I know this is obvious to most, but bringing up other issues has one serious flaw in logic, for those who care about such things. This thread is not that thread. What other presidents do may well be equally immoral, though that discussion is not that discussion.

I cannot count how many times here a poster has assumed that someone who is criticizing this action must somehow have a double standard toward similar action. All this “what about” stuff is useless.

 

[pnewton]

The US should pull out of NATO and the UN.

I am going to think on this and get back, as it seems counter intuitive to Caritas in veritate and the need for cooperation in a world with increasing interdependence. But my intuition might be faulty. I do not see isolation and increased nationalism as compatible with Catholicism, whose very name is universal.

On the other hand, without the United States, it might be such an organization could take a more balanced role on bringing about peace in the world. I do not know, but it would be interesting and perhaps deserved if such an action resulted in sanctions from the rest of the world against an aggressor nation that pulled out because of their exceptionalism.

 

[PetraG]

Rather than risk a petty retaliation, I will not quote anyone, but the thread here is on the US Airstrike in Iraq. I know this is obvious to most, but bringing up other issues has one serious flaw in logic, for those who care about such things. This thread is not that thread. What other presidents do may well be equally immoral, though that discussion is not that discussion.

I cannot count how many times here a poster has assumed that someone who is criticizing this action must somehow have a double standard toward similar action. All this “what about” stuff is useless.

Exactly. The overarching principle isn’t extinguished regardless of whether there is a precedent for it or not. We’re not arguing about whether or not ethics had anything to do with previous Presidents electing not to make such an attack. It does not matter how many previous Presidents violated moral law or how brazenly willing this President says he is to do so or how popular such a stand is with voters; none of this makes it right.

 

[PetraG]

Write your congressman to repeal the war powers act. Trumps playing by the rules as they exist in reality.

Divine law IS reality, those are the “rules we play by” and that is the subject of the thread.
Is what the President did and what he’s threatening to do just? Is it right?
After all, abortion is legal. Same-sex marriage exists in the law. That doesn’t make it moral. Yet one would think by the arguments in this thread that precedence and lack of a criminal penalty are all that determine whether a course of action is moral for a President.

That argument holds no water at all.

He had a foreign military leader killed without giving warning that he intended to capture or kill his target or explaining why it was necessary to consider such an action. It was an assassination. That he wasn’t the first President to order such a thing doesn’t make it right.