With everyone so focused on health care nowadays, it has been analyzed to death, and there’s very little I can add to the discussion. Not that I don’t have an opinion (government take over of 1/7 of the US economy is so bad it’s close to treasonous, and the fact that it passed the senate on Christmas Eve speaks volumes both about the liberals sense of timing and sense of desperation), but today we’ll be talking about something else. War. Specifically, we’ll be talking about the ‘just war’ thing I told you about in my intro that got me so incensed that I started this blog.
Right now, we are engaged in two wars – one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. The war in Iraq is winding down (or it is if you listen to the mainstream media) and the Iraqis are taking more responsibility for their own security. All to the good, if Iran or other Islamo-fascists don’t waltz in and try to destabilize the country. Afghanistan is a different story, and I’m afraid that we will find out exactly what the Soviets did in the 1980s – Afghanistan is a backward, remote, tribal country that is too wide and too wild to be tamed without a politically infeasible outlay of both treasure and blood. I surely don’t want that to happen, but I am afraid it will. I lost a good friend in the early days of the Afghan invasion to oust the Taliban (Marine Captain Dan McCollum – may you RIP buddy). I don’t want to see any more American blood spilt over there, but neither do I want the terrorists to have a base with which to conduct operations against American assets in the region, or in the world. Better Kandahar than Kansas City.
But, that is getting slightly off the track of what we’ll be speaking about today. Specifically, I’ll be talking about the concept of a just war and the looming threat of Iran, which is quickly becoming a very serious threat to the Middle East and to the West.
There are basically three “theories” of war – Pacifism (i.e. no war at all; it is never permissible), a “Just War” (i.e. war sometimes needs to waged, but within the framework of moral and legal constraints), and Realism (realpolitik or whatever you want to call it) (i.e. kill them all and let God sort them out). Or, in slightly different terms, think of pacifists as the student protestors of Vietnam in the 60s, or members of the Quaker sect of Christianity. Just War folks would be the British during the American Revolution (march in a straight line, line up and fight like civilized men). Finally, realistic folks would be somewhere along the lines of William Tecumseh Sherman during his march to the sea (burn everything of use to the enemy). For a much more in depth discussion on this subject, I highly recommend Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer. It is an excellent book and is pretty much considered THE authority on this subject.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. “
-John Stuart Mill
My friend made the comment that there is no such thing as a just war. Actually, the exact exchange was:
Him: There is no such thing as a just war.
Me: Tell that to the people in Bosnia and Darfur
Him: You're describing interest, not justice. It may be right for *them* to have their oppressors killed, but to claim that it's just requires an essentially fundamentalist perspective.
From this, we can gather that he is a pacifist, for whatever reason or reasons. The problem with this world view is that evil does, in fact, exist, and needs to be confronted. That is the completely proper argument Just War makes against pacifism. In fact, my friend’s quote is completely asinine against even the most cursory review of world history. First, I have no idea what he’s talking about when he says “fundamentalist perspective.” Second, would he seriously argue that we should not have destroyed Hitler for what he did to the Jews? Or that we should not have destroyed Saddam Hussein for his rape rooms and torture chambers? Evil does exist, and no one’s “viewpoint” can change that basic fact of nature. Should the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Mao Tse Tongs, and Saddam Husseins of the world simply be ignored and left to perpetrate their evil? (I’d love to debate someone who would seriously argue the actions of those men were not evil, but rather a matter of “interest” and “viewpoint!”).
But, the just war theory also takes issue with the realistic outlook in that we simply cannot abandon all our morals as human beings when we fight a war. We cannot and should not shoot through innocent civilians, destroying them and their property, in order to get to the enemy (why do you think American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have so much trouble with terrorists retreating into mosques?). However tempted we may be at times to go that route, we need to understand that war is one of the most, if not the most, major undertaking that humanity can choose. Thousands, if not millions of people’s lives will be affected by the decision to go to war. We can choose to go into those mosques and get the terrorists, but we need to realize there are consequences to that choice. Where is the middle ground? The theory of Just War attempts to find it.
That middle ground is where the current situation with Iran comes into play. The Obama administration is attempting to find a middle ground of the Iranian situation when, really, there is no middle ground. The US and Iran are each playing a game waiting for the other to give in. So, here’s the rub – neither the US nor Israel will accept Iran becoming a nuclear power. Iran is hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding (they live above a sea of oil, what the hell do they need nuclear power for?). Obama and the UN give timelines, and Iran ignores them. Iran makes threats and Obama says we need to have a dialog. Every time Iran raises the stakes (such as the little reported-on incursion into Iraq and the seizing of an oil well by Iranian soldiers – see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580653,00.html ), Obama blunders about showing his woeful lack of international experience (although, at this point, I’m not sure that his predecessor could have done much better with the current situation).
So, if the option of letting Iran obtain a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, what are the other options? Negotiate, or war. Iran has already shown its complete lack of willingness to negotiate, and is most likely using it as a stalling tactic so it can obtain the weapons it desires. That leaves war of some type as the most realistic, though very unattractive, option.
The war scenario has problems, though. Major ones. Israel cannot take on Iran alone. If it preemptively strikes Iran, not only will Iran launch assaults, but Israel’s neighbors (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al) may support Iran. Those neighbors are all Muslim countries. Will they stand idly by and watch another Muslim country get attacked by the Jews? Because Israel is our main ally in the region, the US will have to become involved. Will Iraq allow US forces to launch attacks against Iran from forces within its borders? Hard to say, but my guess is: unlikely. As much reason as Iraq has to despise Iran, at least they are fellow Muslims, as opposed to crusading infidels.
That leaves the main US strikes to be conducted by sea and air. US air power is unmatched in the world today, but can surgical air strikes and naval bombardment guarantee taking out the Iranian’s military assets? Can it even guarantee that the nuclear facilities will be destroyed, much less air and other defense assets? Once hostilities have begun, can the US also guarantee the safety of its homeland? To think there are no sleeper cells of Iran or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda in the US is naïve, to say the least.
Also, what if Iran decides it is better to attack first? If sanctions are eventually imposed, Iran may decide it’s better to “use it or lose it” and strike first, rather than suffer the indignity of sanctions that would eventually cripple its economy, rendering its defense much reduced. Israel would be the logical first strike target, especially since Iranian president Ahmedinejad has regularly promised to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian missiles can reach well into Israel now, and even to southeastern Europe. Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece are watching with very interested eyes the pace of Iran’s nuclear and missile development programs. Because they are all in striking distance.
And this does not even consider what such a scenario would do to the world economy and our military. Iran is the currently the second largest producer of oil, after Saudi Arabia. If those assets were cut off from the world supply, the small recovery occurring now would be completely wiped out, and the world economy would suffer a tremendous blow – a blow that would take much longer to recover from than the current downturn. The strain put on the US military (and their families) is already great. During the Cold War (specifically the Kennedy administration), the paradigm was that we could fight 2 ½ wars. Two regional conflicts and one “regular” war. The downsizing of the military begun under Carter and continued with Bush the Elder and Clinton ensures we are stretched to the limit with the two regional wars in which we are already fighting.
I am, unfortunately, not hopeful for a positive resolution to come out of the Iranian situation. All roads seem to lead to pain – pain sooner or pain later, but pain nonetheless. I hope and pray that I am wrong. Will there be war? I don’t know, but the Magic 8 ball says ‘All signs point to yes.’
For more on these topics, I urge interested readers to go to Jane’s Defense Weekly and Stratfor.com. Stratfor.com’s recent article on the Iranian incursion into Iraq provided much of the impetus for this article. Read it here:
Right now, we are engaged in two wars – one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. The war in Iraq is winding down (or it is if you listen to the mainstream media) and the Iraqis are taking more responsibility for their own security. All to the good, if Iran or other Islamo-fascists don’t waltz in and try to destabilize the country. Afghanistan is a different story, and I’m afraid that we will find out exactly what the Soviets did in the 1980s – Afghanistan is a backward, remote, tribal country that is too wide and too wild to be tamed without a politically infeasible outlay of both treasure and blood. I surely don’t want that to happen, but I am afraid it will. I lost a good friend in the early days of the Afghan invasion to oust the Taliban (Marine Captain Dan McCollum – may you RIP buddy). I don’t want to see any more American blood spilt over there, but neither do I want the terrorists to have a base with which to conduct operations against American assets in the region, or in the world. Better Kandahar than Kansas City.
But, that is getting slightly off the track of what we’ll be speaking about today. Specifically, I’ll be talking about the concept of a just war and the looming threat of Iran, which is quickly becoming a very serious threat to the Middle East and to the West.
There are basically three “theories” of war – Pacifism (i.e. no war at all; it is never permissible), a “Just War” (i.e. war sometimes needs to waged, but within the framework of moral and legal constraints), and Realism (realpolitik or whatever you want to call it) (i.e. kill them all and let God sort them out). Or, in slightly different terms, think of pacifists as the student protestors of Vietnam in the 60s, or members of the Quaker sect of Christianity. Just War folks would be the British during the American Revolution (march in a straight line, line up and fight like civilized men). Finally, realistic folks would be somewhere along the lines of William Tecumseh Sherman during his march to the sea (burn everything of use to the enemy). For a much more in depth discussion on this subject, I highly recommend Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer. It is an excellent book and is pretty much considered THE authority on this subject.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. “
-John Stuart Mill
My friend made the comment that there is no such thing as a just war. Actually, the exact exchange was:
Him: There is no such thing as a just war.
Me: Tell that to the people in Bosnia and Darfur
Him: You're describing interest, not justice. It may be right for *them* to have their oppressors killed, but to claim that it's just requires an essentially fundamentalist perspective.
From this, we can gather that he is a pacifist, for whatever reason or reasons. The problem with this world view is that evil does, in fact, exist, and needs to be confronted. That is the completely proper argument Just War makes against pacifism. In fact, my friend’s quote is completely asinine against even the most cursory review of world history. First, I have no idea what he’s talking about when he says “fundamentalist perspective.” Second, would he seriously argue that we should not have destroyed Hitler for what he did to the Jews? Or that we should not have destroyed Saddam Hussein for his rape rooms and torture chambers? Evil does exist, and no one’s “viewpoint” can change that basic fact of nature. Should the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Mao Tse Tongs, and Saddam Husseins of the world simply be ignored and left to perpetrate their evil? (I’d love to debate someone who would seriously argue the actions of those men were not evil, but rather a matter of “interest” and “viewpoint!”).
But, the just war theory also takes issue with the realistic outlook in that we simply cannot abandon all our morals as human beings when we fight a war. We cannot and should not shoot through innocent civilians, destroying them and their property, in order to get to the enemy (why do you think American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have so much trouble with terrorists retreating into mosques?). However tempted we may be at times to go that route, we need to understand that war is one of the most, if not the most, major undertaking that humanity can choose. Thousands, if not millions of people’s lives will be affected by the decision to go to war. We can choose to go into those mosques and get the terrorists, but we need to realize there are consequences to that choice. Where is the middle ground? The theory of Just War attempts to find it.
That middle ground is where the current situation with Iran comes into play. The Obama administration is attempting to find a middle ground of the Iranian situation when, really, there is no middle ground. The US and Iran are each playing a game waiting for the other to give in. So, here’s the rub – neither the US nor Israel will accept Iran becoming a nuclear power. Iran is hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding (they live above a sea of oil, what the hell do they need nuclear power for?). Obama and the UN give timelines, and Iran ignores them. Iran makes threats and Obama says we need to have a dialog. Every time Iran raises the stakes (such as the little reported-on incursion into Iraq and the seizing of an oil well by Iranian soldiers – see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580653,00.html ), Obama blunders about showing his woeful lack of international experience (although, at this point, I’m not sure that his predecessor could have done much better with the current situation).
So, if the option of letting Iran obtain a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, what are the other options? Negotiate, or war. Iran has already shown its complete lack of willingness to negotiate, and is most likely using it as a stalling tactic so it can obtain the weapons it desires. That leaves war of some type as the most realistic, though very unattractive, option.
The war scenario has problems, though. Major ones. Israel cannot take on Iran alone. If it preemptively strikes Iran, not only will Iran launch assaults, but Israel’s neighbors (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al) may support Iran. Those neighbors are all Muslim countries. Will they stand idly by and watch another Muslim country get attacked by the Jews? Because Israel is our main ally in the region, the US will have to become involved. Will Iraq allow US forces to launch attacks against Iran from forces within its borders? Hard to say, but my guess is: unlikely. As much reason as Iraq has to despise Iran, at least they are fellow Muslims, as opposed to crusading infidels.
That leaves the main US strikes to be conducted by sea and air. US air power is unmatched in the world today, but can surgical air strikes and naval bombardment guarantee taking out the Iranian’s military assets? Can it even guarantee that the nuclear facilities will be destroyed, much less air and other defense assets? Once hostilities have begun, can the US also guarantee the safety of its homeland? To think there are no sleeper cells of Iran or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda in the US is naïve, to say the least.
Also, what if Iran decides it is better to attack first? If sanctions are eventually imposed, Iran may decide it’s better to “use it or lose it” and strike first, rather than suffer the indignity of sanctions that would eventually cripple its economy, rendering its defense much reduced. Israel would be the logical first strike target, especially since Iranian president Ahmedinejad has regularly promised to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian missiles can reach well into Israel now, and even to southeastern Europe. Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece are watching with very interested eyes the pace of Iran’s nuclear and missile development programs. Because they are all in striking distance.
And this does not even consider what such a scenario would do to the world economy and our military. Iran is the currently the second largest producer of oil, after Saudi Arabia. If those assets were cut off from the world supply, the small recovery occurring now would be completely wiped out, and the world economy would suffer a tremendous blow – a blow that would take much longer to recover from than the current downturn. The strain put on the US military (and their families) is already great. During the Cold War (specifically the Kennedy administration), the paradigm was that we could fight 2 ½ wars. Two regional conflicts and one “regular” war. The downsizing of the military begun under Carter and continued with Bush the Elder and Clinton ensures we are stretched to the limit with the two regional wars in which we are already fighting.
I am, unfortunately, not hopeful for a positive resolution to come out of the Iranian situation. All roads seem to lead to pain – pain sooner or pain later, but pain nonetheless. I hope and pray that I am wrong. Will there be war? I don’t know, but the Magic 8 ball says ‘All signs point to yes.’
For more on these topics, I urge interested readers to go to Jane’s Defense Weekly and Stratfor.com. Stratfor.com’s recent article on the Iranian incursion into Iraq provided much of the impetus for this article. Read it here:
Recent Comments