Nick, At 11:04 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> The creation of >> the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of >> "international >> peace and security" that was in the collective interest of nations. > >The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts >as peacefully as possible -- to avoid war.
That is true, but the United Nations also gave itself the authority to use war as a means to maintain international peace and security. Under the definition of "just war theology" that you provided, the US was *not* justified in launching Gulf War I to liberate the Emirate of Kuwait from occupation by Saddam Hussein. Presumably you would want to update your definition of "just war theology" to also justify wars like the First Gulf War and the Korean War. Of course, there are other problems with your definition of "just war theology", as I (and others) have pointed out that it would preclude a country like the United States from intervening against a government conducting a genocide against its own people. You have claimed that this is a "reductio ad absurdum argument, and pointed out that "there is an enormous spectrum of possibilities between war and non-intervention." I think that you are missing the point, however. I don't think anyone is suggesting that other means short of war should be pursued whenever possible. In fact, I at least have specified that the exhaustion of other means is a *requirement* for just war under Catholic theology. The question before us, however, is would war *ever* be justifed on the part of the United States to put a stop to a genocide being conducted by a government against its own people? Your description of "just war" theology, however, would say that such a war would *never* be justifed, as a country like the United States would neither have been attacked, nor in imminent danger of being attacked. I find such logic very unsatisfying. I also find it somewhat disappointing that you did not respond to my point about police action requiring legitimate authority. Instead, you seem to be offering a semi-definition of "police action" based upon the level of force involved. What I think you are missing is the fact that in domestic affairs, governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, abd usually a true monopoly on heavy weaponry. In most countries, individuals are not allowed to maintain such things as tanks, anti-aircraft guns, and other heavy weaponry. This difference in capabalities is what defines the level of force used to resolve a problem. Thus, I think that trying to define the difference between "police action" and "war" on the basis of force ends up being a tautalogy. In domestic affairs, the government has a monopoly on the use of heavy weaponry, and so a lighter level of force is used in police actions. In international affairs, there are no such monopolies, and indeed only a few limitations on the use of force, and thus the heavier use of force, "warfare" is used in international affairs. Suffice to say, that while the NYPD may be New York's finest, the NYPD is not capable of putting a halt to state-sponsored genocide, nor to the sort of ethnic cleansing that occurred in Kosovo. And as Gautam and others have pointed out, even if we were to agree to your distinction between "police action" and "warfare" based on the size of force deployed, the size of force deployed in Kosovo much, much, more closely resembles warfare than it does a "police action." Again, as noted earlier, in the Kosovo "Action" we destroyed every bit of Yugoslavia's infrastructure that we could, used heavy aircraft and cruise missiles, and targeted Yugoslavian government buildings without absolute assurance that everyone connected to them, or even in them, was a "perpetrator" of ethnic cleansing. Therfore, using the definition you seem to be proposing, our actions in Kosovo would seem to constitute a "War" and do not Meanwhile, I find it amazing that you can continue to suggest that the US "[did] not at least listen to the voices of our friends... and make some effort to build multinational support for such extreme measures." The United States spent well over a year attempting to build support for the Iraq war. He sent Colin Powell to the United Nations, and various officials on trips to Europe. The US did *not* rush into war without listening to the voices of our friends. Indeed, let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance (excluding the largely defunct Rio Treaty.) Of the 32 or so of these countries, at least 22 of them supported the Iraq War (I gave you the benefit of the doubt on any country that I was not quite sure of). Is this not "multinational support" and "listiening to the voices of our friends"? If not, then what is it? (And please remember that support for the Kosovo "Action" was not unanimous either, and was vigorously opposed by our NATO Ally who was closest and most directly affected by the situation, Greece. Did Bill Clinton not listen to the voices of our friends in choosing to go ahead with the Kosovo "Action" over their objections? Why or why not?) Finally, with regard to Catholic just war theology. The Catholic Catechism explicitly states that the Church is incompetent (in the parliamentary sense) to evaluate the application of just war theology to specific circumstances. The Church views that decision as being properly a political one, and therfore seeks primarily to properly form the conscience of political leaders. Thus, when Catholic Church leaders spoke against the Iraq War, they were doing so in a personal capacity, rather than in an authoritative capacity. I think that the Church fills a valuable role by being approximately a force for pacifism in the international polity, and thus a restraint on war, but I do believe that the leaders who spoke against the Iraq War were wrong in this case. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
