Column: Iraq: A just war?

It should go without saying at this point, that the left is wrong about the war. Saddam Hussein is not morally equivalent to George W. Bush, nor are American forces on par with the Iraqi militants who have, in the last week, tortured and executed American POW's as well as fired on their fellow, noncompliant citizens. This war is not about the expropriation of oil resources, nor is it a ploy to get Bush elected for another term. It is being conducted as a legal response to 12 years of weapons violations, the extent of which now gravely threatens populations of both the Middle East and, perhaps, the U.S. directly. The latter threat appears increasingly genuine as more information comes to light regarding Iraq's role in sheltering and aiding al Qaeda terrorists. Bush and Tony Blair are acting with integrity and in the best interests of their countries, which they have sworn to protect. Both hope that this military intervention will prevent much greater catastrophes down the line. Coalition forces are waging one of the most humanitarian-minded military campaigns in history and going to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian causalities. Iraq will have a brighter future after Saddam is deposed, though many Iraqis and Americans will lose their lives in this cause and not by their own choice. One problem, however. These facts, in and of themselves, do not make the war just. I will return to this troubling thought, but first a digression.

Why is it that disagreements over this war have engendered some of the most-heated debates, not simply on campus, but worldwide? The answer is this: From the perspective of anyone who is entirely convinced of the rightness or wrongness of the war, widespread claims to the contrary exhibit the most dangerous crisis that can afflict man, namely, the confusion between good and evil. Many on the left believe that the present U.S. military involvement is part of a long march toward U.S. hegemony, which seeks imperial control over oppressed peoples of the third world. To them, our military is an agent of destruction at best and murder at worst. The U.S. caused most of the world's problems to begin with, and if America would only stop meddling, the world wouldn't be such a hostile place. On the other hand are American patriots (people, not the missiles), proud of the U.S.'s historical role as the great beacon of freedom in the world, who understand our present conflict as an attempt to spread the blessing of liberty, at our own expense, to the brutalized people of Iraq. Saddam's tortuous regime is anathema to every ideal of free civilization and a material threat to the future of the free world. Our military is engaged in a decisive battle that will determine the future of terrorism's hold on civilization. As such, it is our responsibility to fight and win. There are, of course, a host of intermediate positions--those who blame Saddam, but would rather that we acted through the U.N., etc. It should be obvious, however, why contrary claims appear to most factions as simple moral idiocy. Indeed, "morality" has made an interesting appearance in discussions of the last week, particularly on campus. If there is any clear benefit of this war, it is that questions of right and wrong have become unusually salient. We come to understand, in confronting Iraq, terrorism and the possible duty to kill in war, what the poet and Nobel Laureate Czeslaw Milosz meant, writing, "The greatest asset that my part of Europe received in the 20th century, the privilege of being the avant-garde of inhumanity, is that the question of true and false, good and evil, became operative again. [These values] have been discovered empirically, like the taste of bread." Met with this reality of good and evil, however, few are able to speak properly about these terms.

Lest the reader think, at this point, that I have lost my moral compass, let me reassert my observations from above--the left's characterizations of the Iraq conflict are fundamentally wrong. However, moral clarity does not necessarily follow from this realization; rather, this provides the basis to begin a worthwhile discussion. Once we agree on the "facts" of the case, we can begin to ask tough questions regarding the actual conditions necessary for the just prosecution of war. Many are surprised to find that such discussions are most animated within conservative circles these days. The intellectual battles between "neo-conservatives" (David Frum) and "paleo-conservatives" (Bob Novak) over issues such as the U.S.'s duty toward world peace, are some of the most instructive debates of today. To reiterate my thesis, the left is in outer space when it comes to wrestling with the grave issues of morality in war, and the most genuine reservations regarding U.S. policy currently come from the right.

What, then, are reasons for conservative reservations and qualification toward the war? Primarily two: The Pope doesn't support this war and Nick Christie does. Neither is trivial. Regarding the first, why is it that the Pope, himself a survivor of Nazism and Communism and a non-pacifist, opposes this war? Most statements from the Vatican have focused on questions concerning last resort, and it is precisely this criterion of just war that is most ambiguous in present times. How can we presume that all options are exhausted and at the same time guard against the utopian appeasement that fueled the Second World War? Divulging all the reasons for war may compromise our ability to deal effectively with a threat. What must and should democratic citizens know about a war's justification? How could they verify such knowledge, and what role does this knowledge play in their support? I necessarily remain, along with most at Duke, grossly ignorant of the reality of the threats that surround us, be they more or less serious. Thus also, our enthusiasm for or against the war ought be checked by some degree of epistemic modesty. Secondly, the fact that Nick Christie is for the war is part of a larger and unique phenomenon: mainstream liberals, while they still pick on Bush, are by-and-large for the war. Accompanying their support is often a hope for global governance, international peacekeeping and a systematic end to injustice, which most conservatives find dangerously idealistic. One need only recall the words "Waco" and "Janet Reno" to be reminded of why conservatives don't like liberals to be comfortable with the well-intended use of force.

In brief then, I would suggest that conservatives are uniquely qualified to seriously contend with the grave issues of last resort and proportionate aims in a way that others presently are not. Since we know that Iraq will define the parameters for many engagements to come in the war against terrorism, clear moral thinking is more important than ever. Such thinking will not be reducible to simple pro/con positions, but will require both appraisal and critique--critique that may call into question some aspects of this current war. Conservatives know that patriotism is worthless if a war ends up unjust, and the poverty of leftist thought ought not distract us from this. The ultimate question--"Is this a just war?"--will only be settled, if at all, in retrospect. In the meantime we hope that our leaders act to the best of their abilities and pray for a swift and just peace.

Bill English is a Trinity senior.