It becomes more and more difficult to estimate the morality of an act leading to war because it is more and more difficult to know precisely what is going on. Not only is war increasingly a matter for pure specialists operating with fantastically complex machinery, but above all there is the question of absolute secrecy regarding everything that seriously affects defense policy.

We may amuse ourselves by reading the reports in mass media and imagine that these �facts� provide sufficient basis for moral judgments for and against war. But in reality, we are simply elaborating moral fantasies in a vacuum.

Whatever we may decide, we remain completely at the mercy of the governmental power, or rather the anonymous power of managers and generals who stand behind the facade of government. We have no way of directly influencing the decisions and policies taken by these people. In practice, we must fall back on a blinder and blinder faith which more and more resigns itself to trusting the �legitimately constituted authority� without having the vaguest notion what that authority is liable to do next.

This condition of irresponsibility and passivity is extremely dangerous. It is hardly conducive to genuine morality.

The above words are not mine but those of Thomas Merton, written in the 60's.

quote:

From Passion for Peace: The Social Essays of Thomas Merton edited by William H. Shannon
(The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1995) pages 113-114

I set them apart from the attribution to emphasize their relevance to the world we live in today.

I wonder, though, what Merton would write today.

For many reasons, one could argue that there is not as much secrecy, at least not the absolute variety. Isn't there more transparency?

On the other hand, regarding the recent invasion and occupation of Iraq, many believed that the �legitimately constituted authority� had a lot more "facts" than they finally ended up having. There was, of course, the separate issue of what might constitute a legitimate authority in that particular case.

It may be that Merton was just stating the obvious. It may be that he was simply acknowledging that, when the pastors of the Church speak to issues of war and peace, they relate the relevant issues, best they can, to time-honored Just War doctrine, without passing final judgment on the particular moral reality in question. They acknowledge that they have insufficient information and that the final decision resides in the prudential judgment of those who are better informed.

This is certainly the position I found myself in as I deliberated in the run-up to this recent war. It is also the position I am often in regarding most other governmental matters, whether the environment, the economy, education, entitlements or what have you. This is how a constitutional, republican democracy works.

Would I agree with this statement?

quote:

We have no way of directly influencing the decisions and policies taken by these people.

I suppose so. I don't see it as an indictment of our representative system, however. The people I grieve for the most are those who do not even have an indirect way of influencing the decisions and policies taken by their governments, their so-called legitimately constituted authorities.

pax!
jb

I am convinced that ours is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement ... has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation.

It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. We are spending $500,000 to kill every (enemy) soldier ... while we spend only $53 a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.

Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are 10,000 miles away from home, fighting for the so-called freedom of the native people, when we have not even put our own house in order.

The judgment of God is upon us today. And we could go right down the line and see that something must be done -- and something must be done quickly.

We have alienated ourselves from other nations so we end up morally and politically isolated in the world. There is not a single major ally of the United States of America that would dare send a troop to --

The above words are not mine but those of Martin Luther King Jr. written in the 60's.

I set them apart from this attribution to emphasize their relevance to the world we live in today.

Bill Buckley wrote, this August 29th:

quote:

Dr. King did not live to see the day, five years later, when the United States pulled out from Vietnam the last of our flags. That was in 1973. And he did not live to see the day, two years later, when Saigon fell and the communist victors killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and forced more than 1.5 million into re-education camps, causing 2 million others to flee Vietnam.

Lawrence Kaplan is a senior editor of The New Republic. He wrote last week: "U.S. troops are the only thing standing between what we see on our television sets today and butchery on a scale that would rival the worst of Saddam Hussein's depredations." Good men will perhaps not be finally governed by consideration of the moral question in Iraq, but they will not conceal that the point is there for men of good will to weigh.

Following on Kaplan and Buckley, then, consider Tim Russert's question to Cheney this past Sunday :

quote:

But the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq said it's not foreign terrorists that are the biggest threat in Iraq, it is a sectarian war, Sunnis killing Shiites; Shiites killing Sunnis.

And consider Cheney's response:

quote:

Remember how we got there, though. Now, the way we got to the sectarian strife in Iraq was because of Zarqawi, who was the head of al Qaeda in Iraq-- went and pursued a deliberate policy of attacking the Shia in order to try to foment strife between Shia and Sunni.

Remember how we got there, indeed?

Another exchange between Tim & Dick:

quote:

So if the CIA said to you at that time, Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way, you'd still invade Iraq?

quote:

Because, again look at the Duelfer Report and what it said: No stock piles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this true, said by Duelfer, facts, also said that as soon as the sanctions are lifted they expect Saddam to be back in business.

I think a compelling case can be made for a pre-emptive war doctrine that is consistent with just war principles. One element of such a doctrine that would require sufficient nuance is the definition of an imminent threat.

Cynical Monday-morning quarterbacking about the Administration's rationale has been misplaced. Their judgment was applied to the intelligence resources then at hand. Such second-guessing, for practical purposes, is moot.

Russert's question, however, uncovers an alternative rationale in defense of the Administration's unilateral miltary adventure. In my view, Cheney is too broadly conceiving the word imminent. Further, considering he likely agrees with Kaplan's dire scenario, which follows as a consequence of such an invasion, and even uses it as an argument for staying the course, his just war calculus is further warped, in my view.

This is troubling. It has implications for future military unilateralism.

So, Mr. Vice-President, 1) if the CIA said to you at that time, Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way, and 2) if the biggest threat in a post-war Iraq would be a sectarian war, Sunnis killing Shiites; Shiites killing Sunnis; butchery on a scale that would rival the worst of Saddam Hussein's depredations; 3) you'd still invade Iraq?

JB, I think Cheney and Bush are more acutely aware of and responsible for maintaining morale among the troops than are the media and even anti-war congressmen. We've got 150,000 or more men and women in harm's way in Iraq who need to have a sense that the mission they're entrusted with is worthy. What would it sound like to them if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. started saying that maybe it was a mistake to go there in the first place, but now that we messed things up, we have to stay and try to fix it. That's what lefty Dems and most of the media would like to hear, but they don't really give a damn about troop morale.

None of which is to suggest that the Bush admin. is faking it in expressing their convictions for the worthiness of the war. Remember Tenet's "slam dunk" remark re. WMD and Iraq. That's what they had to go on, so it's pointless to go back now and play "what-if," especially if the motive is to help anti-war Democrats get elected.

1) WMD was never the basic reason for war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors.

2) The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences.

3) Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of.

4) I argued before the war that Saddam posed no [immediate] threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war 'on the wings of a lie.'

5) Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine.

6) But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right at the heart of that world.

7) Needless to say, if the public felt Iraq was still several years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon rather than just a matter of months, there probably would have been much less support for the war.

These are quotes from war apologists Daniel Pipes, Thomas Friedman and Kenneth Pollack.

Their rationale will be in play again in the Administration's deliberations regarding Iran. So will Charles Krauthammer's perspective.

These are good people with informed perspectives. Any robust deliberative process will include some informed perspectives from other good people who disagree. Deliberations over Iran will prove interesting and revealing.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] None of which is to suggest that the Bush admin. is faking it in expressing their convictions for the worthiness of the war. Remember Tenet's "slam dunk" remark re. WMD and Iraq. That's what they had to go on, so it's pointless to go back now and play "what-if," especially if the motive is to help anti-war Democrats get elected. [/qb]

Phil, I already made the point that, given the intelligence available, then, from that perspective, there should be no Monday morning QBing, now. We'll save that type of exercise for the LSU-Auburn contest.

Even if I'd stipulate to your troop-morale rationale, that would only make a case for it being imprudent for the Admin. to publicly admit errors. It does not at all follow that it would be pointless. I want total transparency of their rationale so all can make truly informed decisions going forward based on just war criteria. If that is how they think regarding Iraq, then that sheds some light on how they will think regarding Iran or other possible unilateral military adventures.

I'm quite certain the Admin. is not faking anything with respect to their convictions for the worthiness of the war. And that is increasingly troubling; WYSIWYG.

It's the same old Democratization by Big Stick doctrine that took political cover under a War on Terror umbrella. And I'm not saying that either thrust is morally reprehensible or pragmatically indefensible. I'm not saying these thrusts are not meaningfully related. I am saying that I do want to know how the Admin. defines certain concepts and interprets core principles of just war doctrine because those definitions and interpetations need to be known to all who will participate in the deliberative processes that must pass judgment on Admin. rationale, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Finally, let's not be too condescending regarding our troops, who do not live in a vacuum, who do have access to all of the info we do and more, and who, overwhelmingly , have already expressed an interest in setting a timetable to leave (along with 100 of Iraq's 275 members of parliament, and we'll be monitoring that number through time).

quote:

Only 23 percent backed Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately..."

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly �to retaliate for Saddam�s role in the 9-11 attacks,� 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was �to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.�

As for anyone's political motives, whatever ... those ad hominems do not engage me in my consideration of the substance of various arguments and counters.

Well, there are some very compelling arguments coming from many different perspectives regarding these matters of war and peace. Setting aside any cynical notions of how these perspectives might be distorted by political expedience (or otherwise tainted by intellectual dishonesty), and tending to the substance of the positions, in and of themselves, the diversity of viewpoints is useful. It strengthens deliberative process.

Returning to Merton:

quote:

It should be clear to everyone that I do not consider myself a competent judge in commenting on current events, simply because I am not informed. Therefore, for this very reason, I do not intend to take an active part in any political movement or any movement of any kind. And, although I did write a book recently about civil rights and world peace (Seeds of Destruction), I was more concerned with general principles than with specific events.

Keeping the general principles out in front is important. Using them judiciously in deliberative process and debate is essential. Even when all parties use them faithfully, honest disagreements can occur because so many unknowns are being fed into the process.

Not quite as many of these disagreements, as politicians and pundits would have us believe, are really moral disagreements. They only wish they could morally distinguish themselves from their opposition, you know, for marketing purposes.

George Will said something today and it rang true for me. He said the most interesting debates do not occur between the Right and the Left. They occur between the Right and the Right. I won't perform any exegesis on that. I'll leave it as a poem of sorts, a gift each can unwrap and interpret for oneself.

Phil, have a great trip; do kinda wish I was there, but I don't travel well and my platter is full. My best to Jim and Tyra. I hope he sets you straight politically

Namaste,
jb

Have a good time with Jim and Tyra, Phil.

As far as Merton, megadittoes on everything he saw.

The Dalai Lama was in town today along with eleven other Nobel Peace Prize recipients for our most important spiritual event since World Youth Day with
John Paul II.

http://search.denverpost.com/s...&searchButton=Search

A new documentary from Robert Greenwald, who has never been invited on Fox News.

http://iraqforsale.org/

War is a Racket.

shalom

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalmichael9:
[qb]
http://search.denverpost.com/s...&searchButton=Search

A new documentary from Robert Greenwald, who has never been invited on Fox News.

http://iraqforsale.org/

War is a Racket.
[/qb]

Oh well, so much for [s]etting aside any cynical notions of how these perspectives might be distorted by political expedience (or otherwise tainted by intellectual dishonesty), and tending to the substance of the positions ...

Well, I find the Rupertphiles irksome at times, but no more often than their counterparts.

Greenwald is the same fellow who's ranting about Walmart, too, and George Will replies

quote:

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).

When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled ``What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled What's the Matter With Kansas? Notice a pattern here?

Why you going to Oregon, Phil? What IS the matter with Kansas?

Good to see you, MM. I wouldn't deny an element of truth in war is a dirty business but we've got Congressional committees and other checks and balances that are far more authoritative and credible than folks like Greenwald and Moore, or Mel Gibson. I did watch Larry King interview Sean Penn and was impressed. No to say that I totally agreed with Penn but to note how far he's come since Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

I watched Barack Obama give a political speech in a field in Iowa on CSPAN, and his is a much more reasoned opposition. Not as overtly ad hominem in approach. I commend his floor statement against the Kerry Amendment re: the Iraq War.

In another speech, , Obama says:

quote:

Now, let me say this - I don't think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don't think this administration is full of stupid people - I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - it's that it is. It's that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

The reason they don't believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem.

Truth be known, socially and economically, I'd likely side with Dubya more often than Obama, though not without quite a few notable exceptions. And there are times I'd disagree with both of them (for violating subsidiarity principles) for advocating too much spending, too much government. Obama fails to point out the inconsistency of such a position as is rightly and moderately pessimistic about what Big Government can accomplish domestically, but wrongly and inordinately optimistic about what it can accomplish overseas.

There's a tool from our Catholic academic tradition that goes by the name scholastic notations. The idea behind it is that, when taking note of different position statements (sometimes so-called facts), one might note in the margins whether or not this position was possible, plausible, probable, certain, uncertain, implausible, improbable, impossible.

When deliberating over principles, whether just war or subsidiarity or some other time-honored Catholic principles, it is not enough to a) define and disambiguate one's terms b) construct a premise, c) develop a logical argument and then d) reason one's way to a conclusion, speculative or practical, moral or prudential, legal or political, strategic or tactical, miltary or diplomatic. One must use the old scholastic notation tool, diligently and dutifully, to assign a meaningful level of confidence regarding the truth of one's premises.

In applying just war criteria, for example, we must weigh both the prospects for success and the likelihood of unintended consequences. The same thing goes for the application of diplomatic pressure. Failure to properly guage the truth of one's premises, however otherwise erudite and eloquent one's arguments, can have disastrous effects for oneself and others. Regrettably, a case in point continues to unfold in the Middle East, the neoconservative-fashioned Bush Doctrine.

quote:

In friendly Arab countries, such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan, the American "neocons" who provided the ideological underpinnings for Operation Iraqi Freedom, are now jokingly referred to by U.S.-educated Arabs as "the American Wahhabis."

In the latest Zogby poll in the Mideast, four out of five Arabs believe the war in Iraq has brought more terrorism to the region and left Iraqis worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein's bloody dictatorship.
Arnaud de Borchgrave

quote:

The pattern of Islamists outshining secularists in elections is being repeated elsewhere in the Arab world.

The ubiquitous presence of Islamists and the rapid decline of the secularists have altered the political landscape of the Arab world. Early indications suggest that this transformation is going to be permanent.

So the political trend is clear; more democratic the Arab world gets, the more likely it is that Islamists will come to power. Abid Mustafa

quote:

What recent elections tell us is that Arab peoples believe they have been misruled by corrupt leaders, with U.S. support, and the Palestinians have been brutalized, with U.S. support, and their only hope lies in Islamic militants who understand this.

The neoconservatives who dreamed up the Bush Doctrine -- promoting "democracy" would be the U.S. mission in the Middle East -- may be about to hold yet another "Seconds Thoughts" conference. Pat Buchanan

quote:

But in this historic moment Islamists remain the most well-organized alternative to governments, a situation that is unlikely to change soon. And current governments are not popular (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates)

A plurality of Arabs believe that the clergy plays "too little" a role in Arab politics. There is a vacuum of leadership that will inevitably cost governments in truly free elections.

Shibley Telhami

Telhami then summarizes three choices, however limited, for the US: 1) confrontation 2) engagement (Can partial and careful engagement lead to moderation?) and 3) rethink the policy of accelerated electoral democracy and focus on a more incremental approach of institutional and economic reform of existing governments.

Incrementalism and containment and longer term strategies would seem warranted over against the overly ambitious democratization attempts, military and diplomatic, of the Bush Doctrine. Confrontation has too many unknown risks. Engagement with "moderate Islamists" is based on an oxymoron.

A failure to utilize scholastic notations is one way to elaborate moral, political and military fantasies in a vacuum. We have data on MidEast demographics. We need to use them better before we go refashioning the region in our own image.