« Still working.. | Main | Mrs. Webb »
April 15, 2007
Okay, one
Something to chew on: Peter Steinfels looks at three viewpoints on Catholicism and the definition of just war: George Weigel in First Things, a response editorial in Commonweal and an article in America.
In his latest essay, Mr. Weigel grapples with the fact that those costs have become painfully evident, and the larger concerns of security, justice and freedom increasingly elusory. Now his case for war scarcely mentions the earlier suspicion of weapons of mass destruction but stresses a need to defeat jihadi terrorism and establish responsible government and peace throughout the Middle East.
He laments “mistakes made by analysts and U.S. policy makers,” who remain unidentified except for the “convenient scapegoat,” Donald H. Rumsfeld. Finally, he defends the administration’s latest strategy against an alternative that he defines simply as “we’re out.”
In all this, he merely alludes to his earlier critique of the “presumption against war” and makes no mention of the “charism of political discernment.” But his animus toward antiwar religious leaders is unabated.
Which is what struck the editors of Commonweal, who have consistently opposed the war. In contrast to the second thoughts of many liberals originally convinced of the Iraq war’s necessity, the editors note, “no such admissions of error, or even regret, have been issued by outspoken Catholic neoconservatives.” Does Mr. Weigel’s long list of American miscalculations, they wonder, “cast doubt on his claim” about the government’s “charism of political discernment”? Reviewing the prudential warnings and moral qualms issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “it is hard not to conclude,” the editors write, “that the bishops’ charism, rather than the president’s, has better served the nation.”
Both Commonweal and Monsignor McElroy, in America magazine, deny that given the potential destructiveness of modern warfare, just-war teaching has been deformed by making a “presumption against war” its starting point. To reject this development, Monsignor McElroy writes, reduces “a living, breathing moral tradition” to “a historical artifact.”
“One implication of this strong presumption against war,” Monsignor McElroy adds, is that “moral scrutiny of the decision to wage war should take place not merely at the beginning of a conflict, but at every stage of its duration.”
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Putting the posturing over the alledged pacifism of the Popes, and quibbling over a "presumption against war" to the side for the moment, Weigel's slight shift, which Steinfels detects, and Novak's fairly sisable shift are indeed an admission, if not one which will satisfy antiwar liberals.
Msgr. McElroy summarizes that shift admirable as he observes "for instance, how the Iraq war’s stated cause has shifted from the imminent threat posed by an aggressive dictator’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction to “transformational democratization,” whether limited to Iraq or extended (as in Mr. Weigel’s vision) to the whole Middle East. “But transformational democratization falls outside the criteria of the just cause as it has been formulated in the modern age.”
Frankly this kind of geopolitical plate tectonics bears no resemblance to the breathless hot pursuit prewar analyses, and in fact contradicts it at many levels, and practitioners of this argumentative slight of hand should not be allowed to slide it by without comment.
As Novak disclosed, his reasoning has morphed from a narrowly technical prosecution of the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire to "But do not say that the vision itself was not positive. It was, indeed, noble, and carried out with much self-sacrifice, heroism, and devotion to others. Many Coalition forces willingly laid down their lives for the liberty and human rights of people who had earlier been strangers to them."
Whatever happened to leaving Saddam in power if he gave up his "weapons"?
Talk about presumptions, both Novak and Weigel evince a "presumption against soveriegnty" in that any pretext can be used to depose governments in the interest of some ill-defined Tranquility of International Order.
Posted by: al at Apr 16, 2007 7:03:29 AM
“One implication of this strong presumption against war,” Monsignor McElroy adds, is that “moral scrutiny of the decision to wage war should take place not merely at the beginning of a conflict, but at every stage of its duration.”
A sure recipe for losing a war isn't it? When the going gets tough, declare defeat and pull out. However, with the Jihadists, it would take a pull out from the planet earth by their adversaries before they will stop fighting. This present war will go on until the Jihadists rule the globe or until they are defeated.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 16, 2007 8:25:55 AM
>>Mr. Weigel delivers the latest rendition of his case in the April issue of First Things, an interreligious neoconservative monthly. At sharp odds is an editorial in the April 20 issue of the liberal Commonweal, edited by Catholic lay people.<<
If Steinfels is going to lable FT "neoconservative" it is only fair to label Commonweal "liberal."
Posted by: Emil Lowe at Apr 16, 2007 8:35:56 AM
the editors write, “that the bishops’ charism, rather than the president’s, has better served the nation.”
One might be excused for wondering where this "bishop's charism" has been for the last 50 years...seems awfully selective and wholly dependant on hindsight...talk about glass houses and confusion of roles.
Posted by: Tom G. at Apr 16, 2007 8:48:05 AM
I would make this observation: even just wars should be ended as quickly as possible. I'm still convinced that there was more than adequate justification for our resumption of hostilities against Saddam Hussein (for this is a war that began when Hussein attempted to annex Kuwait followed by a lull of several years before fighting resumed -- it didn't begin when the U.S. and U.K. and U.N. botched their weapons of mass destruction argument a few years ago). But war is far from the ideal condition of human life, to put it mildly, and every effort must be made to bring things to as positive a conclusion as possible, as quickly as possible.
But it looks like the U.S. and the other (what used to be) Western Powers do not have the strength of will to make the sacrifices necessary to bring this war to a positive conclusion. It's likely the war will continue indefinitely, even after we turn tail and leave the tattered remnants of the Iraqi people to their own miserable ends.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Apr 16, 2007 9:09:24 AM
I'm sorry, but "transformational democratization" was a major part of the argument leading up to the war to anyone who cared to pay attention. WMD was part of the rhetorical strategy (an imprudent one) designed to sell the case to the old "realists" and "he's a thug but he's our thug" Arabists.
Weigel and Novak are honest in chronicling how their minds have changed. When will their opponents acknowledge that the Left has rewritten the history of the lead-up to the war instead of falsely claiming "we told you so." The "we told you so" depends in part on the assumption that "transformational democratization" has failed, which may end up being the case but is not yet clear and can't be clear for ten years or so--but will be clear if those with an interest in preventing its success--both in the region and here (for cheap partisan political reasons) and in Europe succeed.
I thought it was imprudent from the start not because it lacked a just casus belli (which I thought was transformational democratization, not removal of WMD) but because it lacked good prospects of success because I expected the UN, Europeans, Iranians and Syrians, even the Saudis, to do their best to make sure transformational democratization failed. But once it started, I thought transformational democratization deserved a chance to succeed because the Arabist/Realist thug policy had so cleared failed.
And that is what is lost sight of in all of this. What alternative do the opponents of transformational democratization propose? Do they really believe continued "he's our thug" realism, esp. with a nuclear Iran, is an option we can even consider? Why must they do their best to insure that whatever moderate, slim, or great chance of success transformational democratization has is eroded and undermined by pompous pronouncements that it already has failed? Why the utter refusal to report what good is reportable out of Iraq--one finds it on the alternative media blogs, milblogs etc. but the MSM refuses to report accurately what is happening.
And the Catholic press has been among the worst offenders.
Posted by: flyspeck at Apr 16, 2007 9:27:38 AM
Al,
The actual "presumption against sovereignty" that some of us are using is more clearly expressed as that part of the Bush Doctrine that claims that sovereignty should be dependent on democratic legitimacy. It is not a general presumption; for most countries the concept remains intact. And this change has necessarily grown out of the strange changes that have happened to the concept of "sovereignty" itself
It used to be assumed that sovereignty rested on the willingness to fight wars in defense of it. And it was assumed that nations would normally act peaceably unless they were "at war." But over the course of the 20th Century the concept has morphed into a perverse get-out-of-jail-free-card. Rogue nations can wage covert war against others by funding terror groups or aiding in the spread of nuclear technology, and somehow we can do nothing because they are "sovereign," and we are not "at war." And nations can be taken over by what are often mere robber-gangs, who can then defy the UN and the world by acts like genocide, and the world can do nothing because......they are "sovereign." Saddam was paying bounties to Jew-killers in Israel, and funding terrorists in various countries (some of whose victims were American citizens.) Yet supposedly he is safe from retaliation because Iraq is "sovereign."
That concept of sovereignty does not work. It's become a joke, and an excuse for Western moral weakness and inaction.
That perversion of sovereignty is often mixed in with applications of Just War Doctrine as a cover for the kind of nihilism that says there is nothing worth fighting for. When it is used the deck is always stacked against the US and her allies. When Saddam paid abu Sayyaf bounties for killing people, including ours, in the Philippines, no one talked about OUR sovereignty, or Philippine sovereignty being violated. We only hear "sovereignty" when it's a case of us taking action.
Posted by: John Weidner at Apr 16, 2007 9:36:00 AM
I tend to agree with Weigel's point about giving the political leadership due deference, even though when Bush was building up, and preparing for war, I was skeptical.
Once in, the situation changes, it seems to me; and it also seems to me a fair number of those opposed to the war seem not to see it that way. Once in, our moral obligation includes seeing the thing through, if that is possible.
The issue that interests me in all this goes beyond the Iraq war, and has to do with the War on Terror; and it has to do with the issue of torture and abuse of power.
Is anyone other than the usual suspects saying anything really insightful on this? I'm naturally skeptical, and part of me, of course, doesn't want to believe our country, our leaders, would do that. But that isn't good enough. Has First Things written about that?
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Apr 16, 2007 9:39:31 AM
The problem with Steinfels article is that it doesn't enumerate Weigels(or conservative for that matter) position on how this war was in fact a just one. To be fair, he assumes people will read the two referenced articles.
Weapons of mass destructions was just one of the reasons stated for this war. Another one, that Bush clearly stated was Saddam Hussien(SH) intentional non complaince with the UN resolutions from the first gulf war. It was also staed that SH was harboring terrorist, which after 9-11, showed that they were prepared bring a fight to our doors.
It happened to be the weapons of mass destruction issue that all of the liberals signed onto so that they could publically support what, I think, they thought was something that needed to be done. So it is awfully easy for them to now say "i was wrong and we should have never have done this." How conveinent.
Furthermore, what does it matter that the stated aims of the war has shifted. You may disagree that democratization can be brought to that area of the world but it was always discussed as one of the goals. Iraq was considered one of the more advanced societies in the middle east, and one where democracy could be planted and help bring that society into the group of responsible nations. Because that area of the world is producing so much of the life threatening danger to the rest of the world, it has to be adressed with something other than some blather about a "commitmment" to the peace process. What has not been tried?
But consider, Abraham Lincoln took the Union into the civil war for the Stated purpose to preserve that union. As that war dragged on and looked hopeless, the cause for the war shifted to the Emancipation of the slaves. Was the war unjust before or after or both? Or is it only just becasue it was successful?
It is only because this war has gone much tougher than anyone thought, including liberals, that all of this reassessment is taking place. And i happen to agree with Weigel, and others, that we are in a fight for our lives because we are, as lincoln said, "the last best hope on earth."
Posted by: david hyland at Apr 16, 2007 10:01:56 AM
John,
You cannot simply redefine "sovereignty". Its a concept preexists any particular instantiation of it. And if it is truly the Bush Doctrine that "sovereignty should be dependent on democratic legitimacy", then this is not something a Catholic can countenance.
Certainly post enlightenment political "philosophers", be they socialists or social contract liberals would like to redefine sovereignty (and have) to accord with their varying priorities.
But if "democratic legitimacy" is the shifting test of sovereignty, rather than sovereignty being an objective characteristic, then even the United States, which is a Republic, and thus has at its heart an impediment to the fullest expression of Democracy--even the US will ultimately fail that test.
flyspeck,
what you say is not true. The President and many others specifically denied that was the motivation for Iraq. Novak did as well. Its implicit in the promise made by the President and reiterated by Novak among others that Saddam would be left in power if he were to comply with the UN resolutions.
Posted by: al at Apr 16, 2007 10:09:11 AM
But John, if you are right that the idea that "sovereignty should be dependent on democratic legitimacy" is a necessary part of the pro-war argument, then can we acknowledge that the problem is not the Vatican and JPII and Benedict are not being true to Traditional Just War Doctrine--which is what Weigel's point has been?
If this is a new definition of sovereignty, then the argument that the Vatican has imposed some novel vision of pacifism is just false--the novelty is those who've redefined one of the fundamental characteristics of political philosophy.
Posted by: al at Apr 16, 2007 10:14:06 AM
I like to use the 2003 Weigel piece denouncing the "presumption against war" in presentations on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Chapter 11 of that wonderful document (highly recommended by Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est) makes it very clear that any discussion of conflict resolution must begin with just such a presumption since "[w]ar is a 'scourge' and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations." Indeed, the traditional Just War criteria are included in the Compendium only as limitations on the possible use of force by a state which has been directly attacked by an aggressor, as the opening of the section in which the criteria are listed makes clear:
A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms. To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: [criteria listed]Insofar as they claim to be following the thinking of the Church, Weigel and company have been wide of the mark.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Apr 16, 2007 10:18:30 AM
Ron--you don't seem to be addressing John's points about Saddam's pre-2003 actions. He was attacking the US, directly and indirectly. He was also supporting terrorists around the world. What to do about that?
Posted by: Catherine L at Apr 16, 2007 10:48:24 AM
"A sure recipe for losing a war isn't it? When the going gets tough, declare defeat and pull out."
I was just thinking the same thing. The test for any of these so-called developments is: what would've happened in WW2? If the answer is: Nazis win, then this so-called "development" only means that evil people will triumph because good men can do nothing.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 16, 2007 10:57:03 AM
David Hyland wrote:
"But consider, Abraham Lincoln took the Union into the civil war for the Stated purpose to preserve that union. As that war dragged on and looked hopeless, the cause for the war shifted to the Emancipation of the slaves. Was the war unjust before or after or both?"
Actually, Lincoln waited until the decisive victory at Antietam to say in the Emancipation Proclamation of September, 1862 that on January 1, 1863 slaves living in states still in rebellion would be considered freed. Slaves in border states that were not in rebellion and in certain already conquered areas of the South were not freed.
However Lincoln regarded slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation only addressed states in rebellion and gave them 3 months to end the Confederacy. That wasn't changing his mission to preserve the Union.
Posted by: MAB at Apr 16, 2007 10:59:41 AM
It's nice to see Weigel stepping back from the "charism of political discernment." For me, that was the point where Weigel and the FT crew went off the deep end during the build-up to the Iraq War. There is simply no justification for saying that George W. Bush (no matter what you think of him) is guided by the Holy Spirit. I think it was pretty indicative of the bankruptcy of their thinking that their magazine was advancing a religiously informed public philosophy, but telling religious leaders to butt out of the debate.
I just hope that soon FT can stop blaming flawed implementation and start examining some of the assumptions in their thinking about religion and society.
Anyway, there is a lot of good stuff in FT and the build-up to the war in 2003 was surely the worst episode in the history of the magazine.
Posted by: scriblerus at Apr 16, 2007 11:10:22 AM
To use the experience of one war as the criteria for a large generalization makes about as much sense as using the outdoor temperature on a given day as proof of global warming.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 16, 2007 11:16:36 AM
Al,
"the novelty is those who've redefined one of the fundamental characteristics of political philosophy."
My point is that the concept has already been re-defined, in a way that makes it a mockery. I don't think a new definition is a necessary part of a pro-war argument—that could be made without it—but it is necessary that we bring some clarity to the concept if our arguments are going to make sense. I'd say that "sovereignty being an objective characteristic" won't work, it has already become amorphous.
In a larger sense, war itself has been re-defined, and our discussions tend to be futile because we don't have clearly defined terms. In an age of what's called "Fourth Generational Warfare," the lines between war and peace have been blurred, and we are not taking that into account.
I would argue that what we call the "War on Terror" is not, by any traditional standard, really a war. (I don't have a good word to use, but it is in many ways similar to a military campaigns of the ancient world against bands of brigands or robbers that have infested some district. Maybe there's a Greek or Latin word for that.) We are not at war with any nation and no conventional military forces are in combat with us.
I'll be happy to argue this point in more detail later, right now I have to get to work. But my main point for the moment is that our situation has become blurred, and that people are refusing to see this, and doing so, I think, in a dishonest fashion. The ambiguities are always presumed to work against action by Western powers against rogue regimes. (One can think of many examples; one is the extremely ambiguous status of the UN. The US and allies are held to the strictest legalistic standards of compliance with UN resolutions, always against taking action, while Saddam's decades of flouting them is never held to justify action.)
Posted by: John Weidner at Apr 16, 2007 11:17:10 AM
One could argue that the potential destructiveness of modern warfare makes smaller wars more necessary rather than less, given that the catastrophic Second World War grew out of an unwillingness to challenge Hitler until it was too late.
Of course, World War I came out of a local war that got big, so I don't think there's a satisfactory solution empirically-speaking. Both sides have good points, depending on which war you're looking at.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 16, 2007 11:23:02 AM
First of all the connection between Saddam and Al Queida has been debunked numerous times over.
Most recently, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense pointed out that the Policy Office of the Pentagon had misrepresented (egregiously so) the connection, a misrepresentation that the Vice President cited by way of an article summarizing their leaked alternative intelligence presentation. This presentation (it was actually a power point) was leaked specifically so that it could be used to rebut the actual intelligence on the Saddam/Al Queida connection, which at the time the intelligence agencies agreed was minimal: "Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative." . . .
The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said."
So again, the depiction of Saddam as a supporter of Terrorism against the US is false, was known before the war to be false, and has only been rendered all the more unlikely by discoveries made after the war.
Posted by: al at Apr 16, 2007 11:34:56 AM
"The charism of political discernment". What a wonderful term! I simply love the lengths these guys go through to push Catholic theology through the eye of the militaristic needle! Anyway, I think it is clear to everybody at this stage that the Bush administration embodies the polar opposite of the "charism of political discernment". I believe the Holy Spirit is teaching a valuable lesson here, for those open to it.
Some other points: I keep hearing that argument, that-- even if the war itself was wrong-- the United States needs to stay there to fix the mess. There is some logic to this argument, but ultimately, it is flawed. The United States is engaged in an illegal occupation, and it is seen as such by the majority of Iraqis. Having opened the Pandora's Box of bloodshed, there is nothing it can do to close it. Again, there is a shocking refusal to understand the history, culture, and psychology in this part of the world, and especially the lingering effects of western exploitation following the Ottoman carve up. The only solution is the Lebanon solution: the regional powers need to convene a Taif-like conference, and hammer out an agreement, backed by massive reconstruction. The United States needs to stay far far away. Remember, the notion that the US has a "divine mandate" to fashion the world in its own image is more in tune with Calvinism-Marxism than Catholicism.
I also can't believe people are still bringing up Saddam's perfidity at this late stage, as there was ever any doubt that he was a bad guy. But please. Off the top of my head, I can list a group of really horrible world leaders (often doing far worse than Saddam)-- are you guys proposing a global initiative to take them all out, pre-emptive war on a grand scale? As for supporting terrorism, the United States itself is not clean. ABC News has reported that the United States is funneling money to Jundullah, a Sunni terrorist group based in western Pakistan. The New York Times has reported that the United States allows arms deliveries from North Korea to flow to Ethiopia. CNN's Michael Ware reports that the U.S. military provides protection for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iraqi-based group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department (for links to these stories, see here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_04/011105.php).
I actually agree with Emil Lowe above on one point. It's not a good idea to use secular ideological terms in the Church. I don't like "neo-conservative". I especially don't like "liberal". It makes absolutely no sense to apply that word as used in the American context to Catholic debate when it means something quite different (see Pius IX...)
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Apr 16, 2007 11:37:54 AM
I quite honestly have a problem with Just War doctrine in its present form. While very useful in the period in which it was formed, based on the conditions that were not only in existence at that time but on premises of the place of the individual and his relationship to society.
It's like saying that if my neighbor attacks me or another neighbor I am allowed to defend myself or him, but if he beats his wife I must stand by and do nothing. Indeed this was the prevailing thought in society in general at one time.
So if a sovereign nation commits horrible acts against their own people another country must stand by and do nothing because they are sovereign and "war is sourge."
This ignores the fact that some governments are not willing to negotiate in good faith, will never give up power of their own accord, and do not have values in common with the Christian (or secular) West.
John may be wrong in that it is not possible to redefine sovereignty, but he is right in concept. It is not in the interest of the modern world to say that just because a nation is sovereign that they have a right to do what they wish. The kinds of acts done by North Korea, Iran, Iraq(under its previous regime) would have resulted in a declaration of war against them a century ago. In the modern world we are unwilling to do that, because "war is a scourge." So instead of thousands of soldiers dying in an effectively executed war hundreds of thousands die over decades, while millions live under oppression. And more and more bad actors come into existence, after seeing that the international community will tolerate their actions.
Posted by: TerryC at Apr 16, 2007 12:00:38 PM
Catherine,
You ask an important question. The answer, which most commentators seem to skirt around, is that sometimes the only moral options may be ineffectual.
The subtext of this debate, it seems to me, is that some "pro-war" folks seem to think that the presence of "prudence" and "proportionality" in the just war calculus are antidotes to the so-called suicide pact risk, but that probably isn't right; on the other hand, some "anti-war" folks seem to dismiss the suicide pact problem too easily -- they should own up to the fact that in some circumstances Catholic morality does require that we be willing to allow evil to prevail if the only alternative is committing evil ourselves. The most troubling aspect of worldwide jihad is that it is exceedingly difficult to combat without introducing very difficult moral questions, and we must acknowledge the temptation for self-delusion when it comes to such questions. Self-defense and the defense of others provide license for violence, but only in prescribed circumstances.
My own views on the war are probably most in line with flyspeck's, but I respect al's reasoned analysis even I can't share his certitude.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Apr 16, 2007 12:02:36 PM
Al, To say that Saddam did not help al Qaeda means that he was not supporting terror actions, including some against the US, is a non-sequitur. I never mentioned al Quada.
There are many terror groups, and there is no question that he was supporting some of them. He did it openly.
But that whole situation is part of the ambiguity I'm writing about, and it is being exploited dishonestly. You just did so.
Rogue states can funnel money to terrorists, and no one really knows quite what is being supported. So they are presumed innocent, and we are held to strict standards of proof.
It's crazy, and is the very opposite of ":just."
Posted by: John Weidner at Apr 16, 2007 12:29:34 PM
MM: "Having opened the Pandora's Box of bloodshed, there is nothing it can do to close it."
It is amazing the degree to which liberals who supposedly care about the Iraqis so casually dismiss the idea of their horrendous slaughter, all so that the US can retreat.
It seems to me, MM, that you're really just pushing another DETERMINISTIC IDEOLOGY on all of us. Keep your "war never solved anything, except for the American Revolution, Civil War, WW2, Cold War, Gulf War, etc, etc." ideology to yourself.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 16, 2007 12:31:49 PM
