I listened to parts of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech today and then later downloaded the transcript to see what he actually said rather than relying on the color commentary of the talking heads of cable TV. My first impressions were that it was a somber and thoughtful speech skillfully delivered, but he used a couple of words and phrased that made my ears perk up. Fairly early in the speech, he used the phrase “just war” and listed preconditions for a “just war.” The three conditions he listed were: it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; the force used is proportional, and whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Those words reminded me of one of the favorite classes given by one of my favorite professors at UW during my ill-fated midlife return to academia six years ago. Anyone who studied history at UW over the last fifty years will remember Professor Jon Bridgman. His explosive barking laugh, his nervous pacing around the podium, and the witty stories he told made him and his lectures memorable. In any case, the class in question was called War and Society, focused on Just War theory using WWI as the case history. We studied Jus ad Bellum, the causes for a just war, and Jus in Bello, morality within war. Jus ad Bellum usually contains a few more preconditions for a just war than Obama listed. A couple of additional preconditions are comparative justice (the grievances leading to war on one side are greater than the grievances of the other) and probability of success (wars should be winnable, not just a vengeful slaughter or a hopeless cause).
A good case can be made that the initial war against Afghanistan in 2003 was a “just” war. America was attacked by forces trained and supported by al Qaeda in Afghanistan; sending in 1000 US forces and airpower to help rebel Afghan forces defeat the Taliban seemed about right proportionally; the USA did nothing to directly provoke the 9/11 attacks, and the probability of success was high. (Sparing civilians from violence is usually considered part of Jus in Bello.) So George W. Bush was probably morally right to go to war in Afghanistan. At the very least, Western world opinion was on the side of America.
What happened afterward is anything but just. Thousands of combatants and non-combatants were rounded up, tortured and held without trial or charges or hope for release, all in clear violation of international law. Including those held in Afghanistan, thousands are still imprisoned nine years later. So much for Jus in Bello.
But now we have a new president who offers change and hope that we and the world, as evidenced by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, can believe in. He is sending in 30,000 additional troops to augment the 100,000 already there. What conditions exist today in Afghanistan that can possibly justify the war? The Taliban is long gone from government, and according to American intelligence estimates, less than one hundred Al Qaeda members are in the country. Are our troops fighting there in self-defense? Is this a war of last resort? Are the grievances against Afghanistan so great as to require the occupation of the country? What are the chances of success, and how is success defined? By any of the conventional just war arguments, Obama doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on.
Obama’s a brilliant guy, and maybe he is using some of that brilliance to rationalize to himself that he’s doing the right thing. But what’s with the line, “For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.”? That’s a line right of W’s Manichean playbook. America is good. Our enemies are evil. I often wondered how you can fight evil, a supernatural force, with conventional means. Don’t you need God, or at least a superhero of some description, on your side to do that? Are we fighting a holy war? Is this Armageddon and no one told me?
This was a speech that Bush’s speechwriters may as well have written. The biggest problem is that Barack Obama, the man who was supposed to be everything George W. Bush wasn’t, delivered it.
Update 12/11
At least Obama didn't try to describe the Iraq war as a just war. He mentioned Iraq only obliquely by saying, "One of these wars is winding down." Even Obama, with his formidable intellect, realized there's no way to rationalize the morality of that war.
No comments:
Post a Comment