So many people have already offered their two cents worth on Jimmy Carter’s op-ed in this morning’s NY Times that it seems almost pointless for me to do it. But, what the heck, pointlessness is what this blog is all about, right?
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises …
I’m not sure how far Carter wants to lean on his foreign policy record, whether it be Iran (pre- and post-hostages), Afghanistan (reacting to the Soviet invasion with a lot of insubstantive but provocative measures), or even Camp David (which briefly got Sadat and Begin to the signing table, but didn’t really address the substantive issues that have haunted Middle Eastern negotiations before and since).
And what’s with the Christian cross-waving? Is the implication that Bush is a bad Christian? I thought there was a strain of thought that said Bush was too Christian, that the Iraq conflict was predicated on some sort of end-times mumbo-jumbo.
… I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.
How many countries would make it substantially multilateral? How many countries have offered their support here?
This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
Sorry, are we knocking other Christians again? Fomenting factionalism? Arguing whose theology should be considered sound and whose shouldn’t? What prize was it that Carter was awarded with this year?
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
Never mind that there are plenty of folks who think that there is no such thing as a “just” war.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.
Well, sure, there’s any number of alternatives to war. Just none that will remove the threat that Iraq presents. UN Resolutions certainly haven’t done the job up until now — are we on #17 or #18? The only thing that has worked is war and the threat of war. Does anyone seriously believe that UN inspectors would be in Iraq if the US and UK didn’t have forces massed in Kuwait?
But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.
I’m sorry — does the “justice” of a war depend on a majority vote of the world’s governments? Really?
The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
Because if the NY Times leaks “The Secret Plan for the War on Iraq,” it must be true. Unlike the eleventy dozen other leaked “Secret Plans.”
Never mind that, even if there’s a shred of truth to that particular rumor, I’m pretty certain that the plan doesn’t say, “Hey, let’s bomb those relatively defenseless Iraqis over there.” It more likely says, “Here are the critical military and strategic targets. Let’s use precision munitions so that just because Saddam is building ammo bunkers next to mosques and hospitals, as few civilians get killed as possible.”
The war’s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Um, we have “smart bombs,” but I don’t think anyone’s weapons are that smart. Under this rubric, has any war ever been just? Could any war ever be just?
Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in “collateral damage.” Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Which placement is, in fact, a war crime.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
So we should have ceased fire against Japan as soon as we had killed as many Japanese soldiers as US casualties at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines — and we should never have gone to full-fledged war with Germany, either.
Carter is famous for trying to tie human rights to foreign policy. This requirement, though, would seem to indicate that “What have they done to us?” is the only legitimate guide to international relations. Or, to put a Christian spin on it, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
Last time I checked, Dubya was, in fact, the President of the United States. Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of Britain. Arguably, they have more legitimate authority than, say, the leaders of China.
The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, …
Oh, he means that the Security Council — the self-appointed five “winners” of WWII, plus a rotating roster of partial members (sans veto power), which other members can be full-blown democracies or (more likely) bloody dictatorships themselves — are the “legitimate authority” of the world’s (?) “society.” Right.
And as to honoring the vote of approval, 1441 itself notes that Iraq has already thumbed its nose at other resolutions, reaffirms that there’s only a cease-fire with Iraq (based on their full compliance), recalls that member states can use “all necessary means” to force compliance, and gives Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply fully. The current course of action by the UNSC — that anything is prefereable to actually following through on the conditions and consequences of 1441 — is what is “dishonoring” the UNSC’s resolution.
… but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority.
But if China and France and Russia say it’s okay, then it’s okay (and “just”)?
Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
Because the only economic interests involved here are the bribes being offered by Washington. Right.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.
So as long as there’s a possibility of destabilizatoin and terrorism, we should never do anything. That’s bold international leadership for you.
Besides, it’s difficult to think about what sort of peace would be worse than this, or this, or this.
Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
Conversely, by letting its own sternest warnings be ignored, the United Nations will undermine itself as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America’s world standing if we don’t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq’s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
So it’s okay to threaten war, as a “final option,” but not to actually engage in war unless everyone on the UN Security Council agrees. Right.
Oh, and, by the way, we should keep footing the bill, both for the UN and for the hovering troops waiting for an authorization that seems likely never to come.
Chumpion of peace and justice sounds more like it.