Dear visionaries,
I was asked off line for the reasons I oppose the war in Iraq. But before summarizing those reasons, allow a brief response to John’s translation of my request.
John said, “Translation: Do not comment about the war on terror or the war on Iraq. I might disagree with you.” Actually, I would love a genuine debate, with a real exchange of real views — a debate between ethical grown-ups. My request was to ethical relativists only. A better translation of my comments would have been: “Do not comment about the war on terror or the war on Iraq if you have nothing to say. I do not want to debate with anyone where actual disagreement is impossible.” Relativistic opposition to the war is like preferring grape nuts to corn flakes. In a world without fixed norms, mere personal taste is no basis for a coherent foreign policy. You are personally against the war? And your personal whims are the highest authority for this opposition? I am sure Saddam, Dubya, Osama, et al. will be sure to take this into account.
But in a world with fixed standards, there are good reasons for opposing the war, even though much good may come of it.
1. The war is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war on other nations. But there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing them to approve “military action” that will result in “regime change.” If this is a war, then declare war. And if there were an established link between 9-11 and Iraq, then such a declaration would be defensible. But thus far, there has not been.
2. This war is the first significant chess move opening up the game of the “second great colonial era.” At the end of the first colonial era, the United States was a Johnny-come-lately, trying to catch up with Britain, France, etc. But in the new global climate, the world of corporate colonialism, the United States is poised to move into her imperial era, with no serious competition anywhere. In effect, we are volunteering to run the world, which is not within our competence. Empire means countless small wars around the perimeter of that empire. While imperialism is not uniformly bad in its effects, it has enough serious cons to make me want to stay out of it.
3. This war will encourage and accelerate the growth of internationalist bureaucracy, regulations, and law. Bush has been taunting the UN, saying that if they don’t join him they will become just another impotent League of Nations. Of course I would like nothing better than for the UN to become like the League of Nations, but they are far more likely to show their cravenness in other more creative ways. Although I differ with him, Bush does have a backbone, and so when it becomes apparent he will actually go into Iraq alone, many other nations will then join our coalition at some point — so that they can be on the winning side, and have a share in the booty.
4. This war is hypocritical. Saddam is an evil man, and we say that we are going after him because he is evil. But actually he is an evil, vulnerable man sitting on top of a small ocean of oil. There are other evil men, with weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, and we are leaving them quite alone. In fact, one good argument that Saddam does not yet have the capacity to deploy weapons of mass destruction in battle can be seen in the fact that we are about to attack him. I don’t think we would do that if we knew that he could take out 50,000 of our troops in one engagement.
5. Last, and most important, this war does not meet the Christian criteria for a just war. Over the centuries, Christian theologians (beginning notably with Augustine) have developed criteria under which war may be undertaken. There are two basic categories. First is jus ad bellum — the circumstances under which it is appropriate to go to war, and jus in bello, the standards of conduct within war itself. For the most part, with certain notable exceptions I believe our military does well in fighting in a way that lines up with jus in bello (e.g. not executing prisoners, not attacking civilians as a principal target, etc.). But on the criteria for war ad bellum, we have it all gummed up. Such standards include 1. having a just cause, 2. an appropriate authority declaring the war, 3. having a righteous intention, 4. having a reasonable chance of success, and 5. having proportionality between the end sought and the means used. Out of these criteria, we meet the fourth one, and perhaps the fifth. In my view, we fail on the first three.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
“Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.