Just war theory

While I am waiting, I think the parameters for a just war claim are interesting. One of d.r.'s complaints was that I didn't address the issue in depth. Let me remedy that. Here are the first couple, along with d.r.'s response:

Just Cause
1. Did Hussein violate the terms of the cease-fire? YES! - In fact, he violated 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. That was enough justification to remove him, even without weapons of mass destruction (which by the way were discovered - they just were not of the amount the intelligence data said they were, nor were they as up-to-date as suggested).
2. Was Hussein a war criminal, having been convicted of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? YES - the Kurds cowered in fear of this guy and begged for help. They were the first to embrace the Americans and have by far benefited the most from the invasion of Iraq. If Sadaam was still in power it is possible these guys wouldn't exist now.

Just cause is a biggee here, and one that we as a country are still discussing. And part of that is due to the haziness of the reasons we went in. When we invaded, Bush said it was because Saddam presented a direct and immanent threat to our very security. That was Condi's "mushroom cloud" argument. After we went in and found no wmd (sorry, old and decaying ones are hardly proof of an immanent threat) the justification from the White House switched to "promoting democracy" and because Saddam had "wmd capability." Just cause in this case seems fuzzy. Paul Wolfowitz (one of the war's architects) not only said that Iraq lacked ethnic rivalries, but admitted that the WMD was simply invoked to scare people into supporting the invasion. Sigh.

d.r.'s point two about Saddam's war criminal status is true, but not sure that elevates us to the Just Cause level. Was he a horrible murdering dictator? Absolutely. Had he killed many of his own people in the past? Yes. Was that ethnic cleansing ongoing? No. Not to say that Iraq was warm and fuzzy under Saddam, because we know quite well about his rape rooms and psychotic sons. But that can describe many regimes around the world. If we are about taking out war criminals, we have a long list and better start drafting people.

Just Intention
1. Does America want to rule Iraq? No - we are trying to establish a representative republic in that country.
2. Is American seeking to destroy the Iraqi civilization? No - American troops and commanders have gone out of their way (sometimes with harm to themselves and the mission) to keep civilians alive and away from harm.

Hmm. Just intention is just as fuzzy as just cause. I am sure that most Americans don't want to rule Iraq, but are we that clear about Bush and Cheney? Some neo-cons clearly want to use Iraq as a permanent base to exert American hegemony into the region. Some clearly want to control that source of oil. Are those just intentions? I don't think so.
Point two is where I think d.r. is off the beam. No doubt that many (in fact, most) American military professionals are that--professional--and want to fight this war correctly. But we have ample evidence that people from the top down have decided that we can throw out old rules and fight the "terrorists" on their own terms. Abu Ghraib was not an aberation. The administration itself fought to keep torture as an option and when they could not defeat a bill outlawing torture, Bush added a signing statement giving him the right to torture anyway. Add to that the suspension of habeas review, the attempt to name people as "enemy combatants" and several other tactics used by this administration and I think our intentions are far from clearly just.

Proper Authority and Public Declaration.
1. Did the President have the authority to go to war? YES - and Congress even voted for it in an overwhelming way.
2. Did the government make a proper declaration? YES - the people were told and Congress was informed more than 48 hours before military action, as well as having know the intention weeks before (and voting for it - see above).

Again, this is right to a point. Certainly congress voted to give Bush authorization. Was that based on good information? I don't think so. Everything we know about the intelligence process suggests that Cheney and others within the administration wanted to invade and cherry picked the intelligence to justify that invasion. d.r. accused me of calling Bush a liar, and I certainly have in the past. But I really wonder why Bush still has credibility. He has certainly lied about many things, from being briefed on the danger to New Orleans levys to Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame outing.

More later.