Just War Theory and the Invasion of Iraq

This article was written a year ago, and so does not take into account recent dynamics such as the successful surge.


Dr. Keith Pavlischek, a Christian ethicists specializing in Just War Theory, visited Tyndale House recently to lecture on Just War, with special emphasis on the invasion of Iraq. I was very pleased with his argumentation which affirmed that the invasion was just.

I was unable to ask certain questions during the Q and A time, so here's is my interaction.

Saddam's Threat to America
Regarding whether or not Saddam was an imminent threat to America, I thought that Dr. Pavlischek had laid out a clear rationale as to how indeed Saddam was indeed a clear, imminent threat:

• He was a known supporter of terrorism;
  
• He made sure that everyone was convinced that he had WMD's;
  
• He had not complied with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire
  
• He was still in state of belligerent hostility toward the U.S.
  

In light of 9/11, how could the U.S. not fear the very real perception that he would not take advantage of any opportunity to facilitate a WMD disaster against U.S.?

Saddam was like a neighborhood thug who is well-known beyond a shadow of a doubt for having robbed at gunpoint several convenient stores in recent years. If such a thug comes into your store and acts as if he's ready to rob the store, with his hand stuffed in his jacket pocket and his fingers formed into the shape of a pistol, ethics of the situation would demand that you get him out of your store, by force if necessary. If it were my wife or daughter minding the store, I myself would shoot him dead should he act threateningly and respond with refusals, threats, and belligerence. If it turned out that he didn't have a gun, one might be tempted to plant one in his hand. If this sounds unethical, consider that the U.S. could easily have planted some kind of nerve gas in one of Saddam's stockades, but didn't.

Why Now the Question of the Ethics of the Invasion?
But, more importantly, I was surprised as to why we're discussing the ethics of the invasion of Iraq. It happened about 6 years ago, and we can't do anything about it now. Moreover, there was no indication that this discussion is taking place in order to make us wiser for future military action. So, we ought to ask why people are all so jacked up about asking about the ethics of the invasion?

One obvious explanation is that there is a concerted interest in heaping condemnation on America for being such a baddy. But really, America has been exemplary in this matter. Back when the U.K. was set on world imperialism, if some poor villager's arrow landed anywhere close to His Majesty's army in Burma or some other occupied territory, would the arrow have constituted a threat to the kingdom? Hardly, but the fury of the kingdom would go unabated against this action. What other world power would have been so tolerant for so long, and worked so hard through world diplomacy, or even allowed Saddam to stay in power like the U.S. did?

A long convoy of trucks, military equipment and scientists would leave their U.N. compound
early in the morning, and make its long trip to an Iraqi inspection site, only to have some puny Iraqi military official say, "No. I regret to inform you that you may not inspect this facility today." And so, the convoy would then turn around, with tail tucked, and return back to its inert U.N. compound. Any other major military power would have shown up with tanks and rolled over anyone who tried to stop the inspection. The U.S. should have done so. World criticism of the U.S. handling of Iraq is illegitimate given our incredible restraint.

Saddam gave standing orders to harass our aircraft with machine gun fire throughout the 1990s, yet the U.S. allowed him to stay in power all those years. Incredible. This in itself was justification to remove him. Yet people have the nerve to say that he shouldn't have been punished for such provocative acts. Those aircraft are manned by real people—the sons and daughters or perhaps the moms and dads of America. Only hypercritical, agendized weanies would argue that this was no reason to remove Saddam.

The Future of the Middle East
Two of the just war elements are that there must be a reasonable chance for success, and that the war must be waged in order to establish the peace. This should have been the point of focus for Dr. Pavlischek.

Prior to the invasion, there simply was absolutely no foreseeable hope for peace in the Middle East. If American efforts to secure stability, peace and democracy in Iraq succeed, however, then the dynamics of the situation will have been altered profoundly. Peace, stability and democracy in Iraq will create increasingly greater pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to pursue democracy. In this regard, there has already been some early fruits of the invasion, although much more is needed. The subversion of Middle Eastern countries to freedom and democracy would be the greatest boon to world peace we could possibly achieve in this century.

So, the burning question then, which I would have liked to pose to Dr. Pavlischek, is why are the western democracies so hopeful that American aims will be defeated in Iraq? It is an amazing thing to realize that the vast majority of Europeans would celebrate if America were to tuck tail and run out of Iraq tomorrow. Seeing that Europe is so much more vulnerable to the threat of Islamo-fascism, it is an amazing thing to see that not only are European governments refusing to help establish peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq, but they do things to undermine the American effort.

Europe's failure to aid in the establishment of peace, security and democracy in post-war Iraq borders on insanity.