I say that this is a possibility (though “against the USA” isn’t necessary–wouldn’t you regard such a “credibly pending attack” against Israel to be sufficient? I don’t know of many who would regard that as quite so dubious…). Given my lack of access to classified documents, etc., in question, I can’t say much more than that… but since my point was to refute the claims that “the War in Iraq was certainly unjust”, it should do, for now.

My understanding was that the “preemptive war” argument was that such certainty is not necessary.

Let me be clear: I cannot speak for the President directly, nor do I support the general, unqualified idea of a “preemptive war”, so-called (i.e. against a country with no history of explicit aggression against us or our allies, who happens to be amassing nasty weapons). But it’s my understanding that, at least in the eyes of the US administration, such was not the case. Saddam Hussein’s regime was a sworn enemy of Israel (our ally) and of us; he’d been defying the U.N. inspectors for over 10 years, and all credible evidence suggested that he was trying to amass WMD’s (of which he’d demonstrated his willingness to use). Given that the international community had forbidden him to possess such weapons, having deemed him untrustworthy (think of a felon forbidden by the government to own a gun), this was a problem… and when “stern warning after stern warning” from the U.N. was met with a middle finger from Saddam, it’s neither unreasonable nor unjust that something had to happen that was more than mere words on paper. But again, I have no special interest in defending the Iraq War, per se; I mention these points only to refute those who seem “absolutely certain” that the War in Iraq was unjust. It might have been; I’ve no idea, frankly. But I do know that no airtight case has been made against it–at least, not in my hearing.

You are worried about “creeping heterodoxy”. I think this is because you associate those who strongly oppose the war with those who support abortion, or maybe don’t really mind it.

That’s not really an accurate way of putting the case. For me, it’s not a function of “word association” (or “political topic association?”); it’s a measure of proportion and contrast (i.e. vociferous and energetic about “political left” causes, mild and lackluster and even dismissive about other causes–it’s like Sherlock Holmes’ “dog that didn’t bark”), coupled with the fact that a distressing number of those who champion politically “left” issues actually start “apologizing” for those who are pro-contraception, abortion-tolerant, pro-euthanasia, pro-ESCR, and the like… and some of these same “left champions” actually argue those positions themselves! Even a cursory read of (with all due respect) Vox Nova posts (from contributors and admirers) shows that this is the case, and not rarely.

However, being strongly against the war does not imply any position on abortion. These are two separate issues.

True. Speaking for myself: I don’t rely merely on any sort of “knee-jerk extrapolation” (i.e. “you’re against the war, so you must be pro-abortion”); I have a bit more respect for logic, than that! No… it’s the complete *absence* of measurable motivation for fighting a far more grave and sweeping evil (i.e. abortion), coupled with a willingness to vote for an almost mind-numbingly abortion-tolerant politician (Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, etc.) in their enthusiasm for their pet issues, coupled with a distressingly common tendency to argue the abortion-tolerant (or ESCR-tolerant, etc.) position, coupled with a tendency to be very dismissive of what they call “the Institutional Church”, among other things, that leads me to my conclusions on the matter.

It is funny though, I can’t seem to talk about war without some conservative person bringing up abortion.

Well… given the circumstances, I can hardly blame them. If the Titanic is sinking, and some crew members are focusing a disproportionate amount of energy on insisting that no foul language be used while departing, that lack of right proportion (a.k.a. “cluelessness”) could rightly invite some consternation. Speaking for myself, it’s downright horrifying to see an “anti-war champion” meet the issue of abortion (which overwhelms any war, in evil, ferocity, barbarism, and sheer numbers) with something akin to a resigned shrug of the shoulders… or even opposition! There seems to be something in the “politically left” mindset that disarms one’s horror and resolve to fight such inhuman crimes… and I can’t help but grieve it.

You must have forgotten to actually READ the statements in question. That’s the only way you could possibly believe such things.

Are you saying that at the time we entered war the President was certain that Iraq was planning an attack that they could have credibly completed against the USA? My understanding was that the “preemptive war” argument was that such certainty is not necessary. All we have to know is they are bad guys and they might some day attack us and we want to keep the bad guys from getting weapons. I don’t remember the claim that we know they will attack us ever being made. And you know, saying that we don’t have to be certain that they plan to credibly attack us is arguing for evil disregard of human life.

The reason that a Catholic can be in good standing and support unjust wars is because they could be mistaken as to whether or not the just war criterion were met. However, the arguments for war i.e. preventing an uncertain future attack, “democratizing the middle east, etc…. were attempts to justify a war absent a just cause. I’m really not sure how the president could have been certain that a credible attack was being planned.

Simply stating that Saddam was working on wmds, had little regard for innocent life, and hated the USA is simply not sufficient.

You seem to have two concerns. I will deal with the second one first. You are worried about “creeping heterodoxy”. I think this is because you associate those who strongly oppose the war with those who support abortion, or maybe don’t really mind it. However, being strongly against the war does not imply any position on abortion. These are two separate issues. It is funny though, I can’t seem to talk about war without some conservative person bringing up abortion.

On your first concern, I have to say I disagree with you. After 9/11 our nation was consumed with desire for revenge. We sung songs saying we will “put a boot in your ass, its the American way”. We keep singing songs about bombing Iraq or Iran, whichever we hate more at the moment. We treat war and the military as something to celebrate and honor. If the country really viewed it as a necessary evil, military action would be something to mourn, not celebrate. The truth is that in this war there is no set of facts that made me think that we knew that a credible attack against us was being planned. The decision to go to war minus that is evil.

This is not even beginning to address proportionality, probability of success, etc…

If you actually review the various statements you would see neither made a declarative statement that this specific action was clearly unjust. Obviously, both of them (and hopefully all of us) are opposed to war in general. However, the Pope doesn’t get daily intelligence briefings from the CIA, NSA, etc and the Pope is not responsible for the safety of this nation. It can be argued that some of the intelligence later turned out to be less than totally accurate. You can not go backwards from there are assert that makes it an unjust action because the president based his decision on information available at the time.

Separately, for the misguided folks who asserted that Iraq under Hussein didn’t provoke or attack, I’d suggest studying some history. In 1990 Iraq invaded another country (Kuwait). The U.S. and a coalition of other countries responded and pushed the Iraqi army back into Iraq resulting in a surrender and a peace treaty. Guess what? Saddam did not abide by the terms of the agreement. I was in the Gulf a few times in the intervening years and our planes patrolling the southern No-Fly zone (to protect Kuwait and the Kurds) frequently had radar locked on them and often were fired upon. Don’t know about you experts, but that sounds like aggression to me. Folks with little perspective say we should’ve let the inspectors have more time to look for WMD. Saddam had been stonewalling and refusing to cooperate with the inspectors for 14 years. Yet some of you think he was magically going to change his behavior. Okay, let me know if you’re interested in buying a bridge. You can sit here in safety and pretend that if we didn’t take action in 2003 that the situation would have just resolved itself. If you are honest with yourself you’d admit that if we didn’t take action in 2003 the situation would have gotten worse and we’d have to deal with it at a point where Iraq was stronger and likely would have completed reconstituting their WMD program. Don’t know about you folks, but personally I’m glad we didn’t have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors exposed to nasty stuff.

“Shut up, Popes!” – largebill

Let me spell this out clearly. I always thought that the war was unjust. I never thought the criterion were met. As I stated above, I think the presumption is against war. I don’t think that the evidence presented ever beat the presumption not to engage in a war.

Fair enough… and you’re entitled to those opinions, and they’re well within the parameters of views allowable for faithful Catholics (in and of themselves). However, do remember that: (a) I was discussing this with Morning’s Minion, who used somewhat different words and points–so it shouldn’t be surprising if my past posts didn’t yet address your specific slant on the issue; and (b) since the claims have been made (by MM and others) that the war was “objectively unjust”, it’s not unreasonable to ask proponents of that idea to supply proofs, rather than opinions and conjectures (fervent and sincere though they be).

We didn’t know Iraq had wmds. We may have had some intelligence that indicated so. However, it was a controversial issue. A case may have been made for this. But we were not certain of it.

I trust you realize that moral dubiousness is not a function of controversy; abortion is a “controversial” issue, even among (heterodox) Catholics, but that doesn’t affect its status as a grave and objective evil. As for the case in question, the administration was apparently convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that launching the war was a moral imperative–at least partially because of Saddam’s past history with WMD’s, his apparently certain ambitions for acquiring new ones, his professed hatred of the United States, and his proven willingness to use WMD’s on innocent civilians. (The matter of Saddam expelling the UN inspectors didn’t help the matter much, either, if memory serves.)

In fact one or two weapons inspectors said they did not have them. We cannot say that we have the elimination of wmds as our just cause if we are not certain that Iraq actually had wmds. The just war criterion are not met if the danger is only possible. We have to know that the danger actually exists.

I think you may be underestimating the extent to which the available evidence pointed to the existence of WMD’s (and several were later found, actually–I don’t have the internet speed at home to check at the moment, but I do recall buried stockpiles of liquid ricin, or some such, encased in hollow artillery shells; I’ll look that up, if you like). Again, it’s easy to play Monday-Morning-Quarterback, in this case… but the evidence at hand was compelling enough to convince not only the president, but Congress, as well.

I’d also add that WMD’s–while certainly key items in the USA’s proposed rationale–were not the only factors. Saddam’s practices of hiding and protecting fleeing members of Al Qaeda, encouraging terrorist bombings of Israel through words and money (up to $25,000 to families of suicide bombers–see previous post), throwing out UN weapons inspectors at just the time that satellite data showed curious traffic of large vehicles from Iraq to surrounding regions, and other dynamics of interest almost certainly contributed to the overall decision.

But lest you misunderstand me, let me say this again: my main two-fold point was to argue that: (a) supporters of the Iraq war are not necessarily in “bad standing” with the Church (or in a state of sin, on that point), despite the advice of the chaplain in MM’s story, and despite the repeated insinuations by many Vox Nova contributors (perhaps in attempts to justify their votes for Obama); and (b) the vehemence with which many Vox Nova contributors decry the War in Iraq (and all its supposed “proponents”) contrasts with their underwhelming efforts (if any) against abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc., to an almost surreal extent. Were Vox Nova a physical newspaper, I should expect “IRAQ WAR = EVIL” as the banner headline on the front page, with one or two mild articles entitled “efforts to reduce abortions” somewhere near the bottom of page 45, in the “Lifestyles” section. Truly: doesn’t that strike you as somewhat odd… and as at least somewhat indicative of Vox Nova priorities? That sense of disproportion is what led me to post comments here, in the *first* place.

Perhaps this would help: I have no special interest in defending the War in Iraq, per se. I do have some interest in defending those who support it (including the President, and especially including those in the military who fight in it) from accusations of immorality and the like; and I have a vested interest in defending the truth against the screeds of any political party–be it on the “left” or on the “right”. And I most certainly have a vested interest in fighting the “creeping heterodoxy” that leads people to view “politically correct” causes with vigour, while viewing abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, etc., with an attitude of: “Meh. Yeah, I guess, but it’s important to be balanced about this; besides, many people don’t view the fetus/embryo as a person, ensoulment is an open question [sic], quality of life (and the “right to die” [sic]) is an important and non-irrelevant issue, and lots of benefits could be gained from ESCR, too.” To those who are infected with that disease, I can only say (and hope) with Christ: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.”

I’m not sure I understand exactly how that works. Can an action that is an objective evil suddenly become not just no longer a sin, but an act of righteousness? How? And on what grounds?

We didn’t know Iraq had wmds. We may have had some intelligence that indicated so. However, it was a controversial issue. A case may have been made for this. But we were not certain of it. In fact one or two weapons inspectors said they did not have them. We cannot say that we have the elimination of wmds as our just cause if we are not certain that Iraq actually had wmds. The just war criterion are not met if the danger is only possible. We have to know that the danger actually exists.

Second, even if we did have beyond a doubt evidence that Saddam actually had wmds we did not know that he would use them against us or our allies. Actually, I would think that he probably would not do so. If he gained a nuclear weapon, it would give him great power. Actually using it would mean that he would be giving it up. Using wmds against the US or its allies would be suicidal. There are a lot of reasons to think he wouldn’t use it against us, there are few reasons to think he would.

What I am saying is that the case could not be made on strict terms that the just war conditions could be met. The Bush administration was quite honest about this, they called it “preventative war”. There was not a clear and present danger like an army waiting to invade. Instead there was speculation that Iraq may at that time or in the future obtain a wmd and maybe they would use them against us. That Iraq would send a wmd to the US was speculation. The just war requires more than a speculative danger.

It is not up to the opponents of a war to prove it was unjust. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a given war to overcome the presumption that the war is unjust. You can’t overcome this presumption with speculative evidence that an attack might happen sometime in the unknown future. We can’t even go on probabilities of an attack. You actually have to know it will happen. We did not.

Also, I am quite tired of hearing about the fact that it is permitted for proponents of a give war are not unfit for receiving communion. It is permitted to support the war? So what. Just because a thing is permitted does not mean it is necessarily correct. Just because the Pope did not bind people to oppose the war on pain of mortal sin does not mean the war was just. I am tired of people citing this as evidence for the war.

Finally, I will not engage in speculation about the President’s intent. I don’t know why he engaged in war. I don’t think that the just war criterion were met. And that makes it unjust and equivalent to murder.

[Generally it's a function of using certain trigger words, though multiple links in a post will also do it. - Ed]