DISCUSSION/Iraq and domestic protest

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

I was asked off line for the reasons I oppose the war. But before
summarizing those reasons, allow a brief response to Tom Hansen's
translation of my request.

Tom 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:

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 -- 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
tries to fight 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