Is the war in Iraq an unjust war?

[SoCalRC]

This commentary in Crisis magazine by Jesuit Fr. James Schall is an interesting read:
crisismagazine.com/sense.htm

Christ’s peace.

To be honest, I can’t make heads or tails of it. 9/11 happened, yes, but what possible connection is there to Iraq? Saudi yes, Pakistan, yes but Iraq?

Also, weren’t most of Chertoff’s claims of ‘prevention’ debunked by the NYT’s and other investigative reporters? So we basically seem to have a piece reiterating something that was seemingly made up!?

I’m normally something of a fan of Fr. Schall’s, but I must be missing his context/point.

 

[RobbyS]

The United States Government has argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply before the United States Supreme Court. Further we have sworn Congressional testimony from the administration on at least three instances of prohibited activity.

And, of course, we have the beating death of Abed Hamed Mowhoush and the torture crucifixion of Manadel al-Jamadi. Both of these have autopsies assigning causes of death to torture, and both have been subjected to administrative review and found to be in line with US policy (no prosecution of discipline).

We could go on and on, for example, back in 2004 General Antonio Taguba submitted a report concluding that US guards had subjected Iraqi detainees to “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses.” And that the abuses were “egregious acts and grave breaches of international law.” Most importantly, it described the acts as the inherent result of General Miller’s recommendations.

If I were to make that argument I would point to our treaty obligations under NATO and our membership obligations to the UN. Preventative war is prohibited under international law and direct treaty. But I have not made that argument. I have merely pointed out that there is a difference between pursuing what is perceived to be in national self interest and moral obligations of Catholicism. If you torture prisoners, use extraordinary rendition, pay hush money when drunken Pinochet thugs gun down pregnant civilians for sport, or arm Sunni militia who, in turn persecute Christians, murdering them and driving them from there homes - Rome will (and has) object, and seemingly rightfully so. We have ignored Rome’s appeal to provide safe havens in the north for Christians and other refugees that our policies are creating. Like torture, the disregard for civilian non combatants is also non negotiable to Catholics.

There are times when say, being a neo-conservative Republican and being a Catholic will collide. But time and time again, we are shown that God rewards the right path, not the expedient one. Consider again the beating/crucifixion of Manadel al-Jamadi. Having beaten the man near death and then handcuffed him up to suffocate, his interogaters were not sure what to do with his body, so they stashed it at Abu Graib, where grinning guards posed with it. Now we have images of his widow and son posing with such a photo (a female soldier no less):

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2005/oct/jamadi/family_400.jpg

Could we have produced a better rallying cry for anti-American violence in an occupied Islamic state? So you have the worst of all possible worlds. You are using a technique which is largely useless (tortured prisoners tell their interogators whatever they think they want to hear - that is why so much of of ‘intelligence’, like the mobile biolabs, turned out to be worthless with regards to Iraq), you are providing recruitment posters for your enemies, losing the hearts and minds of the average citizen, and having representatives of the state risk their own salvation. Simply redefining torture does not make this any less evil or stupid (from a national self interest point of view).

The implication being that these events happen with great frequency and as a matter of policy, as they did under the ancient Romans or even under the French Army in Algeria. As Catholics we are bound to tell the truth in deed. Is it true that the crucifixion was typical of the way that American soldiers have behaved in Iraq? Or was it like most of the misdeeds at Abu Graib not attributable to an undisciplined/undermanned unit led by an incompetent commander? Propoganda spread by the Arab media and spread by Western media violently opposed to the war–I am thinking of BBC right now, for I heard myself how wildly they were talking on the eve of war—encouraged a resistance to any restoration to order by an undermanned American force. As to the distrubution of arms, it might surpise you that where they could, they army sought to restrict arms to certain authorized forces and to collect arms from private citizens. My son while patrolling in Bagdad spent much time searching for weapons and later, during the battle fo Najaf after suppressed Sadr’s rebellion collecting arms from the Arabs. In one day he handled out $40,000 in casr for the guns that were brought in and he was but one platoon officer. Since the summer of 2003 the US forces have had the aims of ending violence in Iraq and leaving control of the country in the hands of a force controlled by a civil government. We hasve not been successful in that but it is the aim, and in trying to achieve this objective the US forces have tried to use minimal force. Unfortunately an army is a crude instrument, but not as evil an instruments as an undiscipled militia or a band of cutthroats whose sole objective is continued disorder and total disregard for the conventions of warfare.

 

[SoCalRC]

The implication being that these events happen with great frequency and as a matter of policy, as they did under the ancient Romans or even under the French Army in Algeria. As Catholics we are bound to tell the truth in deed. Is it true that the crucifixion was typical of the way that American soldiers have behaved in Iraq? Or was it like most of the misdeeds at Abu Graib not attributable to an undisciplined/undermanned unit led by an incompetent commander?

Frequency does not matter in terms of morality, only authority and response. Both the torture deaths that I mentioned were outside the chain of command at Abu Graihb prison. Both were subjected to administrative review and found to be wholly in keeping with official US policy.

We have to be careful to distinguish between incompetence and immorality. For example, for several years civilian fatalities at US military checkpoints were quite high (at some points, on the order of 10-15 per week). In general, no one wanted to shoot unarmed civilians. I’m sure that everyone from the sentry up would prefer it not happen. It was primarily a consequence of training. In Iraq, showing the palm of you hand does not mean ‘stop’, it means ‘greetings’. Likewise, few checkpoints had interpreters, so explanations of anything unusual could not be understood. Ultimately, a change in command and emphasis triggered procedural and policy changes and these fatalities dropped at least 10 fold. To me, those unnecessary civilian deaths are the result of incompetence in the chain of command, not nec. a disregard for non combatants which is prohibited under Catholic doctrine.

On the flip side, we can look at the exploits of Blackwater. When you hire Pinochet thugs and exclude them from any rule of law, it seems pretty reasonable that you are going to get indiscriminate killings of civilians. When the State Department arranges for hush money to cover up their exploits, it seems pretty clear that the US not only knew what it was paying large amounts of money for - it was getting what it wanted. To me, those murdered, raped, and tortured civilians are clearly in violation of not just Catholic doctrine, but international law.

Some instances are harder to judge. I served two tours as a combat medic in Vietnam, most of the time with the highest casualty bat. in USMC history, so I feel very strongly about certain vet./military issues. Shortly after the start of the war my wife and I began buying and sending helmet liners, sets of Dragon Skin, and up-arm materials to Iraq. At first glance, the need to send soldiers from the wealthiest nation on earth privately purchased body armor, or plating so that they don’t have to forage in a trash dump for materials to protect themselves would seem to be incompetence. That is, you would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to say that the troops did not deserve the best.

But once the Pentagon started putting up red tape it started to appear to me that there was a lot more concern about getting large amounts of money to the ‘right’ suppliers than any legitimate concern for the welfare of the tiny percentage of Americans actually being asked to sacrifice in this fight. Now that we know about the ‘lost’ $8B, the ‘lost’ massive weapons stores, etc. I’m convinced that, with widespread sanctioned greed and corruption, we cannot blame incompetence, we have to look at morality.

The military is undoubtedly a blunt instrument. That is why both the founding fathers and the Church put tight constraints on its use. Understand that questioning rather military action meets Catholic doctrine and questioning the individual troops themselves are two wholly different things. I have always questioned the wisdom of this invasion, but that has not stopped me from doing everything in my power to see that as many of the troops come home whole as possible and that those that, unfortunatley, do not are properly cared for.

 

[RobbyS]

Frequency does not matter in terms of morality, only authority and response. Both the torture deaths that I mentioned were outside the chain of command at Abu Graihb prison. Both were subjected to administrative review and found to be wholly in keeping with official US policy.

We have to be careful to distinguish between incompetence and immorality. For example, for several years civilian fatalities at US military checkpoints were quite high (at some points, on the order of 10-15 per week). In general, no one wanted to shoot unarmed civilians. I’m sure that everyone from the sentry up would prefer it not happen. It was primarily a consequence of training. In Iraq, showing the palm of you hand does not mean ‘stop’, it means ‘greetings’. Likewise, few checkpoints had interpreters, so explanations of anything unusual could not be understood. Ultimately, a change in command and emphasis triggered procedural and policy changes and these fatalities dropped at least 10 fold. To me, those unnecessary civilian deaths are the result of incompetence in the chain of command, not nec. a disregard for non combatants which is prohibited under Catholic doctrine.

On the flip side, we can look at the exploits of Blackwater. When you hire Pinochet thugs and exclude them from any rule of law, it seems pretty reasonable that you are going to get indiscriminate killings of civilians. When the State Department arranges for hush money to cover up their exploits, it seems pretty clear that the US not only knew what it was paying large amounts of money for - it was getting what it wanted. To me, those murdered, raped, and tortured civilians are clearly in violation of not just Catholic doctrine, but international law.

Some instances are harder to judge. I served two tours as a combat medic in Vietnam, most of the time with the highest casualty bat. in USMC history, so I feel very strongly about certain vet./military issues. Shortly after the start of the war my wife and I began buying and sending helmet liners, sets of Dragon Skin, and up-arm materials to Iraq. At first glance, the need to send soldiers from the wealthiest nation on earth privately purchased body armor, or plating so that they don’t have to forage in a trash dump for materials to protect themselves would seem to be incompetence. That is, you would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to say that the troops did not deserve the best.

But once the Pentagon started putting up red tape it started to appear to me that there was a lot more concern about getting large amounts of money to the ‘right’ suppliers than any legitimate concern for the welfare of the tiny percentage of Americans actually being asked to sacrifice in this fight. Now that we know about the ‘lost’ $8B, the ‘lost’ massive weapons stores, etc. I’m convinced that, with widespread sanctioned greed and corruption, we cannot blame incompetence, we have to look at morality.

The military is undoubtedly a blunt instrument. That is why both the founding fathers and the Church put tight constraints on its use. Understand that questioning rather military action meets Catholic doctrine and questioning the individual troops themselves are two wholly different things. I have always questioned the wisdom of this invasion, but that has not stopped me from doing everything in my power to see that as many of the troops come home whole as possible and that those that, unfortunatley, do not are properly cared for.

If one looks at any society, one sees that it has a morality. One also sees criminal behavior. But there are many other kinds of behavior that have bad effects that we do not call criminal Some of these are immoral;others are just acciderntal, the result of bad judgement, some the result of negligence. The courts attempt to sort out many of these instances. Legislatures attempt to limit these behaviors, as do social customs. Yet bad things still happen. Intime of war, many of these limitation disappear and usually by fault of both sides in the war. My problem with your approach, is that you assign total blame on the United States. It takes two parties to make a war. You give the other side a pass.

As to civilian casualties: We have done nothing, I mean abslutely nothing in this war as bad as what we did during world war II. During the battle of Normandy we killed many times more civilians than we have during five years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The level of uncontrolled violence is hard to imagine; but in many respects what we did was the equivalent of starting an avalanch to obliterate the enemy waiting at the bottom of the hill. With them were many civilians who died along with the enemy forces. But in the case of saturation bombing, we made no distinction whatever between civilians or soldiers. Compare that with the relatively “accurate” use of force in Iraq which you find so hard to take.

 

[Ender]

you spoke in ignorance

Then you should be willing to show me the error of my ways … and you can start by answering the questions I asked.

Now, you are trying to hinge the fundemental question of Catholic responsibility on the statements of a Bishop. But we have the statements of two Popes and multiple conferences of Bishops.

My comment, and the reaction to it, was based on the statement of an individual bishop. Comments of others are not relevant in determining the nature of his statements and of our responsibility to assent to them.

Further, you have argued that Pope John Paul II was incorrect in asserting that infallibility with regards to abortion, murder, and euthanasia rests in the infallibility of the Church that resides in the Bishops. Your assertion is that those teachings are infalliblity on some, as yet unidentified, basis.

All of this is off the point regarding the nature of Bishop Botean’s comments, which is helpful in that it saves me the trouble of having to responding to something that is untrue.

Ender

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

obviously the iraq war was unjust. i respect the pope’s understanding on these matters much more than our president’s, as should all catholics.

the most frustrating thing about conservatism in this country is their inability to look critically at our foreign policy and our past wars. most war is difficult to reconcile with the just war theory today because even with good intentions, the evil created from war usually will outweigh the sought after benefits, making them unjust.

a great example besides the war in iraq is the war in serbia. both were based on false intellegence and brought about on the president’s whim.

 

[RWMorris]

obviously the iraq war was unjust. i respect the pope’s understanding on these matters much more than our president’s, as should all catholics.

I respect the Pope’s opinions, but his understanding is questionable. I respect our President’s understanding much more than the Pope’s as should all Americans, Catholic or not.

the most frustrating thing about conservatism in this country is their inability to look critically at our foreign policy and our past wars. most war is difficult to reconcile with the just war theory today because even with good intentions, the evil created from war usually will outweigh the sought after benefits, making them unjust.

Oh, I’m sure you can come up with all kinds of evil that outweighs any good from any of the wars we’ve fought. The problem with people like you is that the evil of war always outweighs the evil of tyranny. I thank God that there are those who refuse to live under your rules.

a great example besides the war in iraq is the war in serbia. both were based on false intellegence and brought about on the president’s whim.

Let’s ask the people of Kosovo if they agree … sorry, they are too busy celebrating their independence to worry about a few naysayers in the US.

 

[bobzills]

I respect the Pope’s opinions, but his understanding is questionable. I respect our President’s understanding much more than the Pope’s as should all Americans, Catholic or not.

In matters of faith and morals, my understanding is that Catholics are supposed to look to declarations of the Pope of Rome and not to the declarations of the President of the USA.

 

[wow]

In matters of faith and morals, my understanding is that Catholics are supposed to look to declarations of the Pope of Rome and not to the declarations of the President of the USA.

 

[RWMorris]

In matters of faith and morals, my understanding is that Catholics are supposed to look to declarations of the Pope of Rome and not to the declarations of the President of the USA.

As much as you want it to be, this is not a matter of faith and morals, it is the application of Just War Doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

• CCC 2309

I know you are tired of reading this. I’m tired of posting it. But that doesn’t change its validity. And I’ll post it every time I read something like you’ve posted.

… if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father … on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion … There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war …

• John Paul II

 

[bobzills]

As much as you want it to be, this is not a matter of faith and morals, it is the application of Just War Doctrine.

I know you are tired of reading this. I’m tired of posting it. But that doesn’t change its validity. And I’ll post it every time I read something like you’ve posted.

I was only saying that it seems to me that whether or not a war is just or unjust involves Catholic morality. And it has already been determined that this war was unjust from the start. Take for example, the statement by the Catholic bishop John Botean: ““The evaluation of these conditions of the just war theory for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” states the Catechism. (2309) However, the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral or for what is good for the salvation of his or her soul. What is legal can be evil and often has been . Jesus Christ and his Church, not the state, are the ultimate informers of conscience for the Catholic.”
and
“Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.”

 

[rlg94086]

“Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.”

That is interesting. Does this mean that any Catholic member of the military is in a state of mortal sin, or does it mean that only Catholic military who are part of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton are in a state of mortal sin?

 

[SoCalRC]

That is interesting. Does this mean that any Catholic member of the military is in a state of mortal sin, or does it mean that only Catholic military who are part of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton are in a state of mortal sin?

Possibly neither, possibly both. The final determination for CCC 2309 is, essentially civil authority. So, the opinion of two Popes and local authority should be given tremendous weight, but are still prudential.

On the other hand, non combatants, torture, etc. are not discretionary. So Catholics in the military aware of violations of those teachings would, presumably, be in a state of mortal sin and unfit for communion.

 

[SoCalRC]

I respect the Pope’s opinions, but his understanding is questionable. I respect our President’s understanding much more than the Pope’s as should all Americans, Catholic or not.

The last time I checked, we were a constitutional democracy, not a monarchy or fascist dictatorship. Officers in the military swear an oath to the constitution, not the president. I respect the office of the presidency, but not to the point were I will compromise either the health and welfare of the nation, or my immortal soul.

As much as you want it to be, this is not a matter of faith and morals, it is the application of Just War Doctrine.

But you are reading it selectively, where is the declaration of war from Congress? Our constitution grants that power to the Congress, not the president. Similiarly, what about our treaty and member obligations with NATO and the UN? Preventative war is prohibited by international law and direct treaty.

And, more fundementally, the Catechism is more than one paragraph. CCC 2312, 2313, and 2314 are not left up to civil authority. Even George Weigel has publicly conceded that torturing prisoners inherently invalidates any just war argument. Torture, rendition, hush money for Blackwater’s civilian killings, white phospor as a weapon in urban combat… Quote away, but stop truncating.

 

[RWMorris]

I was only saying that it seems to me that whether or not a war is just or unjust involves Catholic morality…

Actually, no it doesn’t. The Pope said that a diversity of opinions is legitimate and that I can continue to receive communion. Therefore, I have not sinned. You can believe it is a sin also, but you may not call those who disagree with you sinners, and neither should Bishop John Botean.

 

[Elric]

Was the Iraqi war justified?

To an extent, but certainly not on the reasons given.

Are the actions that were taken justified?

I honestly dont think so, they could have been done in other ways.

Is it/has it been handled the right way?

Absolutly not.

I cant say that I support the actions that allow greedy sub-contractors to come into a country and make loads of money when there are people in the country looking for work and can do the same job. The unemployment rate is apparently quite high (apparently around 80%) and outsiders are brought in to rebuild, I dont think that this is right.

I thought that we were meant to help these people and not see them as some sort of cash cow.

Its very sad.

 

[RWMorris]

The last time I checked, we were a constitutional democracy, not a monarchy or fascist dictatorship. Officers in the military swear an oath to the constitution, not the president. I respect the office of the presidency, but not to the point were I will compromise either the health and welfare of the nation, or my immortal soul.

You mean the US Constitution that says in Section II,

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,…

Sorry for the truncation, I know you don’t like that.

But you are reading it selectively, where is the declaration of war from Congress? Our constitution grants that power to the Congress, not the president. Similiarly, what about our treaty and member obligations with NATO and the UN? Preventative war is prohibited by international law and direct treaty.

Oh, you must not be referring to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. I was under the impression that was a public law. We haven’t broken any treaties with NATO or the UN. If anything the UN contributed to this war by not enforcing its own declarations.

And, more fundementally, the Catechism is more than one paragraph. CCC 2312, 2313, and 2314 are not left up to civil authority. Even George Weigel has publicly conceded that torturing prisoners inherently invalidates any just war argument. Torture, rendition, hush money for Blackwater’s civilian killings, white phospor as a weapon in urban combat… Quote away, but stop truncating.

The three that were water boarded were not connected to the Iraq War. George Weigel certainly has a right to his own opinion, but he doesn’t have the authority to invalidate the Iraq war. I will admit there are always a few bad apples, even in the Church. Does that invalidate the Church. I certainly hope not, and neither does it invalidate the far greater good the US did in Iraq.

 

[Elric]

The three that were water boarded were not connected to the Iraq War.

Actually it can be argued that they are connected by the whole “war on terror” speil used by the government.

George Weigel certainly has a right to his own opinion, but he doesn’t have the authority to invalidate the Iraq war.

It was invalidated from the start because of the reasons/justifications that were used. Falsified information was used to gain support and mobilise the armies to invade (I use that term because that is basically what happened).

I will admit there are always a few bad apples, even in the Church. Does that invalidate the Church. I certainly hope not,

It does if the church allows it to continue and/or tries to cover it up.

and neither does it invalidate the far greater good the US did in Iraq.

Um what greater good exactly?

You mean the sub-contractors getting rich?

 

[rlg94086]

Possibly neither, possibly both. The final determination for CCC 2309 is, essentially civil authority. So, the opinion of two Popes and local authority should be given tremendous weight, but are still prudential.

On the other hand, non combatants, torture, etc. are not discretionary. So Catholics in the military aware of violations of those teachings would, presumably, be in a state of mortal sin and unfit for communion.

Hi SoCal,

In this case, I was asking about the Bishop’s statement. For whom is it binding? He doesn’t make a statement about non-combatants or torture, nor does he mention anything about prudential judgment. He said, “any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin.” That seems very clear to me. I just want to know the ramifications of his pronouncement.

 

[RWMorris]

Actually it can be argued that they are connected by the whole “war on terror” speil used by the government.

It was invalidated from the start because of the reasons/justifications that were used. Falsified information was used to gain support and mobilise the armies to invade (I use that term because that is basically what happened).

Anything can and will be argued. It is obvious you don’t believe in the war on terror. Maybe you are one of those who don’t believe in war for any reason, I don’t know. But you insinuate that the government lied. I’m not above believing that governments do and will lie. But I don’t believe it in this case.

Um what greater good exactly?

Are you saying that Arabs don’t deserve to be free? Are you saying they are not sophisticated enough to enjoy liberty? Are you saying that they deserved to be under the thumb of Saddam Hussein? What exactly are you saying?