catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

"I don't think war is noble"

Default

mrsanniep
Feb 06 2003
03:02 am

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Default

Jerry
Feb 19 2003
03:11 pm

At the risk of leading this discussion back to a point where it began, may I share for the first time a few thoughts about the Iraq situation which I have gleaned from one of my mentors, Chuck Colsen?

Last week we saw a series of diplomatic maneuvers and disputes that threaten to alter America’s relationship to NATO permanently. Germany, France, and Belgium vetoed a proposal to defend Turkey in the case of
an Iraqi attack. The actions of our erstwhile allies prompted a WASHINGTON POST editorial called “Standing with Saddam.” In it, the POST concluded that German and French efforts were designed to check American actions, not Saddam Hussein’s. These efforts, the Post said, “could poison international relations for years to come.”

We need to understand what is driving this serious dispute and why President Bush appears to be so insistent on pushing a confrontation with Iraq, even if it means war and a breakdown of our relations with Germany and France.

In last year’s State of the Union address, the president pointedly referred to what he called the “Axis of Evil”: Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

While such a moral description sounds alien in this postmodern age, it conveys the essence of the Bush doctrine for fighting terrorism. We live in a world where the greatest danger does not come from nation-states like Russia that can be deterred by the risk of nuclear annihilation.Instead, the risk comes from groups like al-Qaeda that transcend
national borders. But these groups, you see, can only exist because they are harbored and aided by rogue states like Iraq. The terrorists need their weapons.

We could try to stop the terrorists one cell at a time, but that is almost impossible. Some will get through, and many civilians will die needlessly. What you do instead is follow a well established military doctrine: Go for the source of their supply. That means confronting Iraq directly, and then others in the Axis of Evil. Stop the weapons, and you cripple the terrorists. The “Axis of Evil” was not just a clever speechwriter’s phrase. It was a deliberate signal of a new
policy to keep the world safe.

Nations like France and Germany are living in the pre-September 11 past. They think diplomacy and sanctions will contain rogue states, but they do not, as Iraq’s continued defiance of the UN shows. The Bush policy raises serious new questions for us: Can this kind of preemptive action against rogue states that feed the terrorists be reconciled with the just war doctrine? George Weigel, a theologian and expert on just war, says, “Yes.”

As he wrote in FIRST THINGS, just war starts with the “moral judgment” that our leaders are “under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom [they have] assumed responsibility.” Fulfilling this responsibility requires enforcing “minimal international norms of order.”

According to Weigel, just war not only permits preemptive action, but it also demands it. To say otherwise would be to render the doctrine irrelevant in today’s world and leave us with two amoral alternatives:
cynical self-interest or what Weigel calls a “free-fire zone.”

So it is a time for a conversation to be led by Christians on how the just war tradition should apply to this new and unique set of circumstances because today the alternative to just war isn’t peace; it is something too awful to contemplate.

Default

dan
Feb 19 2003
07:13 pm

You’ve laid out your argument very clearly, Jerry. Terrorism is the world’s greatest menace. Rogue states cause terrorism. Therefore America should destroy rogue states. Truly terror is a great menace to the world and to America. And truly, rogue states are a menace to their own people and to the rest of the world insomuch as they are unpredictable and unstable.

But to think that terrorism would be wiped out tomorrow if Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were wiped out tomorrow — that is pure fantasy.

laurencer, please make sure to keep this thread. I want people to read it in five years to remember that America had the chance to show the world it stands for peace and freedom. Instead it chose war and domination. I predict more terror and more war as a result.

If Bush’s axis of evil doctrine leads to peace I’ll walk naked from Montreal to the next ‘camping is not optional’ event. And back.
And I’ll eat my shorts.

Default

dan
Feb 20 2003
03:11 am

One more thing. If peace and security are created through bombing the sources of terror, we need to bomb houses of disgruntled kids like the Columbine terrorists; bomb crazy anti-government gun camps like the one that created Timothy McVey; and let’s not forget to bomb mental institutions like the one that produced the terrorist who set the subway in South Korea on fire, killing 130. On September 11 there were many white Americans watching the event thinking to themselves, “Damn, I wish I had thought of that.”

We’ll never be safe from terror. The best thing America can do aside from what has been done to tighten security and intelligence, is to make friends abroad. The worst scenario I can imagine is the one unfolding now, which is essentially America pissing off the world. If Iraq is occupied and next year a disgruntled Iraqi blows up the Statue of Liberty, the world’s public might shrug their shoulders and say, “that’s war.”

Default

grant
Feb 20 2003
04:13 am

But Bush is not fighting terrorism with bombs. In fact, Bush was very critical of Clinton for wasting bombs on tents pitched way out in the desert as if that was a good enough gesture against terrorism. Bush is planning to use military force against these rogue nations because such nations won’t listen to or abide by resolutions and diplomatic efforts. North Korea uses talks as a bargaining tool for more money. Hussein weasels out of his responsibilities and makes U.N. sanctions look like a punishment on the Iraqi people.

Contrary to the idea that Bush only thinks in the short term, it seems that he is thinking way beyond one or even two of his own terms. Bush’s administration has warned that this would be a long, drawn-out war where victories and defeats are not clearly defined, so they are not putting stock in fantasies about eliminating terrorism immediately with relative ease. Bush is taking one step at a time to disarm potentially dangerous regimes in order to prevent terrorists from attaining more dangerous weapons than they already have. Bombing Iraq will not put an end to terrorism altogether, but it’s a first step. So, as Jerry said, Bush has realized the importance of preventative military action, which can be justified under a just war theory, if such a theory has any value.

Default

dan
Feb 24 2003
10:42 am

I guess grant may be right when he says Bush is thinking long-term. Bush’s brain just filters the facts a little differently than some of us.

My brainwave today was this. Has there ever been a serious war between two truly (at least reasonably) democratic countries? I can’t think of any. If this is so, then a fully democratized world would have no need for war. We could have trade wars instead.

Default

eddie
Mar 06 2003
06:04 pm

this inevitable war they speak of — which is to start on Friday — saddens me. frankly, it is bummin me out.

the carnage that is about to take place is unimaginable. I am afraid that Saddam is going to pull no stops and act as if it is his last days on earth. what i mean is: what is going to stop this guy from turning the key?

worrisome. largely worrisome.

Default

grant
Mar 06 2003
07:22 pm

Yeah, the rumor is that Hussein has counterfeit U.S. and British soldier uniforms and he may plan to kill and injure civilians in order to blame U.S. and British soldiers.

dan, I’ve been trying to get Dvdschp to bite on this question of war between two democracies for months and months now. DvdSchp was telling me about a book he read last year that said a war between democracies was impossible. It would have to be a civil war of some type, like Baudrillard mentioned in the Le Mond article in the “Columbine-Terrorism” discussion.

Default

Adam
Mar 07 2003
02:43 am

Dan, you’ve made good points in this thread (as have others). I’m worried about the rash blanket statement about the U.S. “choosing war and domination” and other times when solid arguments are paired with emotionally charged condemnations, but they lead me to a very earnest question: Pretend for a moment that you think the U.N. to be ineffectual AND the U.S. to be too “war-eager” (maybe not such a stretch, though both sides of the issue seem so polarized that this isn’t much of an position). How does regime change get enacted? — and no, that’s not meant as any kind of leading question. I just can’t seem to find an answer to this on the news. Crazy, I know. Basically, is there a good guy here? Because I want to root for him.

Default

dan
Mar 10 2003
04:13 pm

While I was watching the news today I couldn’t help but feel good about the “democratic” process going on in world concerning Iraq. Gone are the days (hopefully) when one civilized country can invade another without justifying its position at the United Nations. Aside from the irregularities and coersion going on behind the scenes, the current crisis gives us a glimpse of what world democracy might eventually look like. I also hope that the Bush administration will learn that the United Nations cannot be ignored, bought, or bullied. These are hopes. The opposite is also possible, but I’m feeling optimistic.

Default

Alice
Mar 11 2003
03:48 pm

I found this interesting reading. It’s the president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s statement on peace. It is a doctrinal statement but take what you will from it. You can find it at the following:
http://www.lcms.org/president/statements/030403peacestatement.asp