Follow Me on Twitter!

  • is completely in the throes of the aphorism that a qualitative study's endpoint is hard to clamp down. 2 hrs ago
  • "needs to buy car tires; for the highlander rims" - sung to the melody of "aqualung" by jethro tull. 5 hrs ago
  • found that only about 2% of our students submitted possible plagiarized papers fall '08. wonder how that compares with national averages. 6 hrs ago
  • thinks after reading several books on secularization theory that the neo-atheist arguments are even less intelligible than before. 21 hrs ago
  • is enjoying playoff football. wishing he was in miami today - not for the game, for the sunshine. 1 day ago
  • More updates...

Recent Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Stuff You Might Find Here

Living Social Bookshelf

The Ooze Select Blogger

Scribe Member

Archives

Stuff Elsewhere

Info/Log In

Stats

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats

War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:21 am Posted in Politics, Religion, Society

That is the fundamental question that needs to be asked of the candidates.  There appears to be a conflation between the openness to attack and attack as a last resort.  In Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson, she responds to the question regarding the so-called Bush doctrine of first or pre-emptive strike by saying that we need to reach a point in the world where “war is no longer a first option”.  I am interepreting the word “point” here as a condition that makes the latter possible, namely war as a last-resport as the opposite of “war is no longer a first option”.  This is a troubling set of propositions and here is why.

If war is a last resort as a matter of principle, as it is in the doctrine of jus ad bellum, then those conditions must apply absolutely in order for it to be an effectual political philosophy on which to base one’s understanding of war.  Ms. Palin makes the assumption that the condition of the world is that attack is a first option otherwise she would not have said that the current condition of the world is one of first or pre-emptive strike.  Thus, in order to go back to a situation in which war is waged with just grounds, we must see the policy of “war as first option” through.  She therefore assumes that the war as first option is just while at the same time holding to the principle that war is a last resort.  Both of her propositions cancel each other out and it is therefore a fundamentally irrational set of assumptions.

The language of “open” and “first” option regarding war is therefore troubling.  Rather than reduce the probability of war it seems to raise it and indeed place it in the lead position of options.  By “doing whatever we can” in order to keep any possible threat out, we need to ask if the threats that are proposed meet the conditions of jus ad bellum.  Now I am not suggesting that as a matter of policy that this is the only political philosophy that must be observed.  Such would be a very naive proposition.  However, from a Christian perspective and from a rational perspective, we must challenge the irrationality of holding two contradictory propositions together.  These are 1) that war is a last resort in principle, and 2) the reality from the GOP platform that war is currently a first option as Ms. Palin’s language clearly implies in reference to the condition of “the world”.  Therefore, under what conditions may we reasonably conclude that we are in a “war is a first option” world?  In order to support war as a last resort, those conditions have to be clearly defined as just.

The notion that we are somehow outside of the bounds of a diplomacy then war condition whould be very troubling.  This has been at the fore of Mr. Bush’s foreign policy at least since 9/11 and continues to be so.  The langauge of war precedes the language of diplomacy.  The language of enemies precedes the language of allies.  This clearly does not conform to any enaction of a jus ad bellum and indeed can be linked to the outcomes and conditions of the United States’ diplomatic relations with other sovereign nations independent of one’s criteria used to assess how successful and positive those relations are at the moment.

Finally, ask yourself how often peace is mentioned as the outcome of foreign policy among any of the candidates?  As Christians, that should always be the goal.  It is not about victory in war, it is about the propagation of peace even as the nations so furiously rage.  Peace must be related to any pro-life position as should be healthcare, education, welfare reform and the like.  Thus, which of the candidates comes out with the more robust pro-life platform?  I submit that the policy one takes to the position of war in the world must be, in the final analysis, inextricably related to one’s very idea of pro-life.  If divorced from pro-life as an anti-abortion platform, that pro-life platform remains inconsistent and anemic especially to any properly Christian worldview.

I am being a bit more judicious than Dr. West who calls this line of thinking “insane” (which I do not think is that far off the mark since it is clearly irrational) and being a little more forthright than Zach’s analysis that it seemed a little awkward (which also appears to be true in her demeanor).

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Drew, I would argue that the jus ad bellum doctrine diverges from the true practice of Christianity. I think a lot of people try to justify to themselves the murder of other human beings by claiming that the rules are different for the State. But who composes the State? It does not exist in a vacuum, nor of its own will.

    I agree that any platform that separates "pro-life" from bellicosity abandons all principle for rhetoric. (Of course, I'd argue that any Congressman or Senator who hasn't attempted the "Constitutional Option" on abortion isn't anti-abortion, either, really; they just use it as a hot-button issue to gain re-election) In this way, both wings of the Demopublican Unity National Committee for Election (DUNCE, aka RNC or DNC) are immoral and wrong. As with their various preferred beneficiaries for welfare, they only differ on the "who," not the "what."

    A truly Christ-like approach to the question would acknowledge that we believers are all strangers in a strange land, and that our loyalties should not lie with any man-made (if God-ordained) state. Our only loyalty to such should extend precisely so far only as such the actions of the state do not inhibit (or even promote) our abilities to discharge our Christian duties to each other and to unbelievers. (This does not include co-opting the state to discharge our duties for us)

    The "opposition" candidates would simply change belligerents. In this, Palin (and McCain) is no more -- nor any less -- bad a choice than their complements on the other side. The only answer to this kind of dilemma is to either divorce ourselves from the fallacy that we must either check the evil with the "D" after its name, or the evil with the "R" after its name, and find a non-establishment candidate to vote for; or we must eschew the electoral process altogether.
    • ^
    • v
    The point is if a pre-emptive strike doctrine is just.
    • ^
    • v
    I understand that. I was saying -- though I did go off on a tangent -- that not only is pre-emptive strike doctrine unjust, but no retaliatory strike would be just.

    I can't imagine the Jesus of the Gospels fighting in even a purely defensive war, and is he not the standard of behavior toward which we are supposed to strive?

    I think the idea of a "just war" is an attempt to justify and rationalize the act of murder simply because it is at the behest and command of the state.
    • ^
    • v
    I understand that. Even as a lowest common denominator of sorts, the pre-emptive strike policy is unjust. I agree that if it was Jesus doing the negotiating, it would be even more radical. What bothers me is that the GOP has spoken little to nothing about diplomacy and peace and have rather put war as a first option and are justifying it. That's scary stuff.
    • ^
    • v
    And that's exactly -- to one extent or another -- the use to which jus ad bellum has been put since Augustine: justifying otherwise unjustifiable wars. I mean, for Pete's sake, the Nazi Germans wore belt buckles that read "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

    The broader problem I see -- and that I intimated in my original comment -- is that there is no option available to Americans who wish to see an end to the bellicosity that has been the US stock-in-trade for the last century, at least. The only difference is that they are "Republican wars" or "Democratic wars." Rhetoric from one side or the other about "diplomacy" is just "lipstick on a pig," if you'll pardon the expression.

    I mean, let's be honest: if peace was what the Democrats wanted, they could simply vote to de-fund our ME hijinx (possibly electoral suicide, but certainly a valiant stand on principle). Pelosi's first act as Speaker, namely, taking impeachment "off the table," told me all I need to know about reason's place in American politics... at least, under the current two-party (sic) system.

    Drew, I don't see a likely outcome to our current situation that isn't scary.
    • ^
    • v
    Should have read:
    the use to which jus ad bellum has been put since Augustine penned it
    • ^
    • v
    Great post again, Drew.

    The incongruity of being "pro-war" while being "pro-life" is for me what makes much of USican evangelical Christianity into more of a nationalistic folk-religion than anything else...

    Palin played a smart line here ... Well, for any viewers who don't think foreign policy experience actually means anything... She's kept her options open for future action while distancing herself from Bush.

    One the one hand its tempting to say that anyone with half a brain won't be fooled by what was apparently a cynical, irrational and bizarre choice of VP candidate from McCain.

    On the other hand, there's anecdotal evidence of "white women" (not my words) deserting Obama for McCain/Palin. I'll be watching the actual polls closely.

    And as an aside... Biden as Obama's pick? Oh dear. hey well.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus