"Preventive (Iraq) War", a Violation of Just War Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elaine_s_Cross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elaine_s_Cross

Guest
Although the title (taken from the article) implies a discussion of “Preventive War” and the Just War Doctrine, it also has a thorough discussion on “double effect.” Since “double effect” has been bandied about by some posters on this site, I thought it might be good to have some details on it in general and with respect to Iraq.

tcrnews2.com/Preemptivewar2.html
 
Well, the whole article and the author’s premise hinges on the Iraq War being a preemptive war, which it isn’t. It is the action taken to fulfill UN Resolution 1441 to bring an end to a long conflict begun by Iraq in the Gulf War. So, it is a non sequitur.
 
Elaine's Cross:
Although the title (taken from the article) implies a discussion of “Preventive War” and the Just War Doctrine, it also has a thorough discussion on “double effect.” Since “double effect” has been bandied about by some posters on this site, I thought it might be good to have some details on it in general and with respect to Iraq.

tcrnews2.com/Preemptivewar2.html
Click to expand...
I have two thoughts…
  1. We went to war with Iraq in 1991. We were under a ceasefire agreement, which was repeatedly broken. We responded to this by renewing hostilities. Therefore, this is not a preventative war. Therefore, the authors minor premise is invalid. Therefore, the whole arguement falls apart.
  2. While the decision to go to war with Iraq is a thoroughly fascinating historical question, is it necessary that we endlessly debate the reason the US, UK and others decided on this second action? They just had a successful referendum vote on their constitution (at least early reports show it is successful) and they have national elections planned for the end-of-the-year. Let’s work toward success in their new government.
The Vatican has moved on…maybe the rest of us can too.

God Bless,

Robert
 
40.png
Della:
Well, the whole article and the author’s premise hinges on the Iraq War being a preemptive war, which it isn’t. It is the action taken to fulfill UN Resolution 1441 to bring an end to a long conflict begun by Iraq in the Gulf War. So, it is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Assuming the UN resolution did authorize war, do the pronouncements of the UN supercede the Just War Doctrine or is the UN exempt?
 
Discussion of moral theology should be done in the Moral Theology forum. Moving thread.
 
Elaine's Cross:
Assuming the UN resolution did authorize war, do the pronouncements of the UN supercede the Just War Doctrine or is the UN exempt?
Click to expand...
The 1991 war was not a preemptive war.
 
rlg94086 said:
2) While the decision to go to war with Iraq is a thoroughly fascinating historical question, is it necessary that we endlessly debate the reason the US, UK and others decided on this second action?..

The Vatican has moved on…maybe the rest of us can too.
Click to expand...

The purpose is not necessarily to debate Iraq, but to debate Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine within the context of the Just War Doctrine, i.e., in the future should we respond the same to other countries as we did with Iraq?
 
My friend forget all the BUSH - IT about just war
I thought it was about OIL
You can call it a pre-emptive just war for OIL
Elaine's Cross:
The purpose is not necessarily to debate Iraq, but to debate Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine within the context of the Just War Doctrine, i.e., in the future should we respond the same to other countries as we did with Iraq?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
rlg94086:
I have two thoughts…
  1. We went to war with Iraq in 1991. We were under a ceasefire agreement, which was repeatedly broken. We responded to this by renewing hostilities. Therefore, this is not a preventative war. Therefore, the authors minor premise is invalid. Therefore, the whole arguement falls apart.
Click to expand...
The war in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation, and perhaps at an extreme stretch to disable Saddam from being in a position to embark on another illegal occupation. We achieved that in the 1991 war, in spades. In 2003 Saddam was not threatening Kuwait nor any other country with invasion.

This article explains this quite well

ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/011703_material_breach.htm

Mike
 
Elaine's Cross:
It appears that Fr. Neuhaus has waffled a bit since then.

“Neuhaus, perhaps, deserves some consolation for finally realizing that: ‘There is a lively and legitimate argument about whether, knowing what we know now, this war was justified…’ (First Things, Dec. 2004, p. 67).”

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/politics2.htm
Click to expand...
What we know now?

Gee, wouldn’t it be great if in all our decisions we could go out years later and know what they know in the future.

Then again, if tons of WMD and plans to use them are unearthed tomorrow, would that make it a just war???

Unfortunately, today is today, not tomorrow. We must make decisions based upon what we know at the time. None of us are all knowing. The just war doctrine does not require our leaders to be all knowing.
 
Elaine's Cross:
It appears that Fr. Neuhaus has waffled a bit since then.

“Neuhaus, perhaps, deserves some consolation for finally realizing that: ‘There is a lively and legitimate argument about whether, knowing what we know now, this war was justified…’ (First Things, Dec. 2004, p. 67).”

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/politics2.htm
Click to expand...
In the notes of the most recent issue of First Things, Fr. Neuhaus provides a very clear discussion of the issues, mostly favorable to engaging the war in Iraq. He is not waffling. He is sorting through the complexity of emotions, life and death, and many people’s purposeful obfuscation for political gain.
 
40.png
gilliam:
What we know now?

Gee, wouldn’t it be great if in all our decisions we could go out years later and know what they know in the future.

Then again, if tons of WMD and plans to use them are unearthed tomorrow, would that make it a just war???

Unfortunately, today is today, not tomorrow. We must make decisions based upon what we know at the time. None of us are all knowing. The just war doctrine does not require our leaders to be all knowing.
Click to expand...
Then I guess that would justify Clinton’s bombing of a pharmaceutical factory when our intelligence suggested it was an al Queda munitions factory.
 
Elaine's Cross:
The purpose is not necessarily to debate Iraq, but to debate Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine within the context of the Just War Doctrine, i.e., in the future should we respond the same to other countries as we did with Iraq?
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link to the Preventative War Doctrine from a US government website, so we can debate it’s merits?
 
40.png
MikeWM:
The war in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation, and perhaps at an extreme stretch to disable Saddam from being in a position to embark on another illegal occupation. We achieved that in the 1991 war, in spades. In 2003 Saddam was not threatening Kuwait nor any other country with invasion.

This article explains this quite well

ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/011703_material_breach.htm

Mike
Click to expand...
It’s a good article, but it hinges primarily on one legal professor’s argument of how the UN resolution’s cease fire agreement can be interpreted. I’m sure there are some lawyers with similar credentials within the UK and US governments to refute Dr. Rangwala.

Again, I would rather spend my time with the situation at hand.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
It’s a good article, but it hinges primarily on one legal professor’s argument of how the UN resolution’s cease fire agreement can be interpreted. I’m sure there are some lawyers with similar credentials within the UK and US governments to refute Dr. Rangwala.
Click to expand...
Most likely, but I would bet (gut feeling only, no proof 🙂 that it would be the majority view.
Again, I would rather spend my time with the situation at hand.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should - but given Suez and Vietnam are still endlessly debated, I think this question will be with us for rather a long time to come.

Mike
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Can you provide a link to the Preventative War Doctrine from a US government website, so we can debate it’s merits?
Click to expand...
Why would I want to do that? I am only interested in the Catholic pov.
 
Elaine's Cross:
Since “double effect” has been bandied about by some posters on this site…
Click to expand...
Elaine, ‘bandied about’ is some pretty strong – and inaccurate – and, in the absence of any supportive argumentation, discourteous language.

Is there a problem with making a simple statement, supporting it, and providing a link? Or does the least little thing cry out to be a snipe?
 
40.png
cmgeo:
My friend forget all the BUSH - IT about just war
I thought it was about OIL
You can call it a pre-emptive just war for OIL
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the Oil for Palaces Doctrine? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top