Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘just war’

Morality, one way or the other

Posted in Policy, tagged , , on 18 February 2010 | Leave a Comment »

The New York Times has published quite a head-scratcher of an opinion piece today.  Its concern is with efforts by Western military leadership in Afghanistan to limit civilian deaths, stating that specific policies to restrict the use of air strikes are based on a well-intentioned but immoral lie.  The substance of the piece is hardly more than the usual trope:

  • War is messy – “For Afghan civilians who are dying in greater numbers every year, the fact that fewer deaths are caused by pro-government forces is cold comfort.”
  • Keep all options on the table – “It is only a matter of time before the Taliban see flares and flyovers for what they are: empty threats.”
  • Victory!TM – “Once begun…the goal of even a ‘long war’ should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.”

The real gem, though, is this passage that (one has to assume) was written without malice or contempt:

So in a modern refashioning of the obvious — that war is harmful to civilian populations — the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim.

Wow.

There are already more informed dismissals of this kind of thinking in circulation, but it surely requires a special kind of rationalization to causally separate military “success” from dead civilians.  While certain goals can be achieved despite unfathomable “collaterals” and definitions of success can be tweaked to match circumstances, where does one come off calling for the deprioritization of civilian impacts in a conflict that seems to be fundamentally about civilian/military/insurgent/government entanglements?

There are no easy choices left for the coalition presence in Afghanistan, and unwinding what some see as the certain machinations of empire is not only about doing the “right” or “wrong” thing.  Nevertheless, a specific commitment  to limit casualties, even at increased risk, should hardly be so controversial.  It has nothing to do with assuming war can be made “fair and humane” and everything to do with connecting the means of fighting with the purpose of the Western presence in the first place.  There’s enough of a disconnect there already without relinquishing the duties of just combatants toward noncombatants.

But what do I know.  I sit at a desk and read books.

Read Full Post »

Hear, hear.

Posted in Politics, tagged , , , on 17 September 2009 | Leave a Comment »

I’ve been catching up on some reading tonight, and have been struck by two gentlemen whose credentials are the ultimate vouchers for their claims.  While their position is hardly novel in either academic theory or political discourse, it seems worth at least a moment to reflect on the fact that they are both retired Marine generals.  On Sept. 11, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar denounced — in the strongest terms one can expect from their station — the apologetic being foisted upon the conscience of free people by architects of torture.

Krulak and Hoar’s rejection of the logical fallacy invoked in defense of these policies, which requires little more than perfect hindsight, is surprisingly subtle, considering the prevailing canard of absolute security.  But, their purpose seems to be more fundamental.  They recognize that something greater is at stake.

Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation’s honor.

The laws that were cast aside in all this, the Geneva Conventions, are neither the thorns of surrendered sovereignty nor the shadows of bygone imperialism.  They are, to the best of our ability, the balance between the just and the unjust.  Though we may wish to see ourselves the judge in our own case, by what should we be measured if not by the standards of our own providence?  Fear, these writers have reminded us before, is the surest means to forget oneself.

It is perhaps appropriate, in this context, to consider Richard Goldstone‘s piece in today’s New York Times.  Writing from his position as lead UN investigator of recent conflict in Gaza, the jurist’s primary interest is to

hold accountable those who violate the laws of war.

The means by which this challenge is met will always suffer from a contentious relationship with the subjects of global conflict, of course.  Nevertheless, the task is paramount.  If friends are either unwilling or unable to give account of themselves as they would have given of their enemies, we risk

a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy.

This, I dare say, threatens to be a needless assault upon the edifice of free societies.

Read Full Post »

Irony and exceptionalism

Posted in Politics, tagged , , , , on 7 May 2009 | Leave a Comment »

So, another month of silence on this blog…  Anyway, I’ve got an hour before I need to run off to rugby practice, so let’s see what I can come up with.  Ah, I know…how about the paradox of American exceptionalism.  That should be an easy one.

This morning, I came across some interesting thoughts by Tom Ricks regarding the positions of the new #3 at the Pentagon.  Specifically, he quotes Flournoy’s rejection of invoking exceptionalism in national security policy.  Ricks has her argue that America’s strict defense of the rule of law must be paramount.  Torture policies must be rejected, international tribunals embraced, the global commons secured.  So far so good.

Here’s the problem: There are two sides to the exceptionalism coin.  We get the assertion that the country (or any sovereign country, for that matter) can, will, and must do everything, EVERYTHING, possible to secure its “interests”…this is the self-fulfilling prophesy of the neoconservative shotgun marriage of Realpolitik with dogmatic moral clarity.  But then there’s also the bit about America being uniquely positioned to be a global leader like none other.  These two notions get confused almost as a rule, and advocates of the former position most surely will be found representing themselves as the strongest (loudest?) advocate of the latter.  At the same time, there are tendencies to decry the “internationalism” of those that would plainly seek to institute a broader reaching means of global governance and accountability.  This has nothing, of course, to do with a new world order, global superstate, or remaking the United States in the mold of the European Union.  It does, however, have everything to do with imbuing the frameworks of international political and civil society with the legitimacy, tarnished yet fully salvageable, of the American brand.  Or, better yet, is there not something to be said for aligning American Law, policy, and practice with the most fundamental codifications of human dignity, in war and peace?

Michael Ignatieff has asked: To what degree does America play by the rules it itself has helped create?

Reagan’s answer would have been: Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

Therein lies the irony of American exceptionalism.  Now, it’s time to stop making exceptions and be exceptional again.

Read Full Post »

Some ‘rule of law’ thoughts…

Posted in Policy, tagged , , , , on 7 January 2009 | Leave a Comment »

Following up on last week’s justice theme, it seems appropriate to get down some ideas about the rule of law.  Particularly, I’m intrigued by the twisting and contorting of principles in order to fit morally and (I would hope) legally unambiguous events into palatable frameworks of understanding.  Perhaps absolutism and relativism will constantly be at odds in the world of circumstance and contingency, but it doesn’t seem necessary to jump to moral (or amoral?) extremes in order to confront the degenerative habit of shrouding the wrongs of power in the garb of the law.  The just war tradition accounts for wrongs in the pursuit of justice (I’m thinking of Walzer, in particular), providing a normative framework for means as well as ends.  Consequently, just war considerations often get dismissed in policy discourses as either too permissive or as ex post analytical models; tragically, this habit too regularly leads to the absence of normative conditions altogether.

While it must be the role of policy to pursue the requirements of justice, our highest laws must be allowed to stand entirely for those absolutes that cannot be sacrificed in the name of a free society.  Thus, foundational laws (constitutions, etc.) often represent principles that may rise above political expediency, interest, or competition.  National sovereignty is but the means of instituting law, independent of the body of principles of which the law is the face.  The point that I’m trying to drive towards is, thus, that when even the fundamental values upon which our conceptions of justice and right are based become subject to question, as has recently occurred in certain legalistic opinionating, wriggling, and obfuscation, then the corruption of the rule of law becomes a very real threat.

The outgoing administration’s efforts to somehow charm the law into submission to political motives appeared on Sunday in a simulacrum of reason that capstones the unwitting and incessant self-parody of Messrs. Bolton and Yoo.  Warning against future overreaches of executive power (by those liberals, of course), they offer the tired excuse that American sovereignty (and, to their credit, statutory accountability) will be sacrificied to indefinite international whims in matters of economic, resource, and physical security (Kyoto, climate policy, and nuclear testing).  What seems to always get missed in the bloveating about compromising American strength is the impact that American leadership on these issues could have in furthering a liberal democratic agenda (that’s small L, small D, and has nothing to do with political parties), advancing diplomatic (and strategic) interests, and encouraging economic dynamism in fields mired in past technologies and resources.  By not only participating but actually leading like only America can (for better or worse!), accountability under just laws becomes a means of foreign policy and an end in itself.

Read Full Post »

By what means?

Posted in Policy, tagged , , , on 28 December 2008 | Leave a Comment »

The Gaza cease-fire ended this week and, predictably, hell has been unleashed on that wretched sliver of earth yet again.  I’ve been trying to think of what I could add to the ongoing commentary on the Palestinian-Israeli situation, a topic that is already debated and spun ad nauseam.  The truth is, not very much.  Instead, my purpose in writing this is for my own sake, to have my thoughts on record.  I trust that any bearing on the present escalation will be apparent.

I should first dismiss any claims to legitimacy that come from those corners that would seek to equate rockets, bombings, and suicides with Israeli self-defense.  There can be no sympathy or accomodation made for the means that Hamas has chosen.  In this regard, only the most firm policy can succeed in keeping the violence of unjust terror distinct from the violence of the just state.  For indeed, it is the saddest of realities that political violence will not pass away overnight, yet it is more worrying still that the justice of the means of just causes has been ignored so readily, faded so quickly, and been replaced so willingly.  It is the tragedy of unjust means that is most terrifying in these times, and any defense of force that must, in order to keep from unraveling, rely upon the moral absolutism of sovereignty, rather than of justice in purpose and method, should be vehemently opposed.  In moral terms, sovereignty (whether over territory, people, or resources) is an insufficient basis for action.

The moralizing that has accompanied the Global War on Terror (that falacious phrase that seems intent on staying with us) has, to speak generally, taken quite a different path than what would be otherwise expected of a doctrine of jus in bello.  The ravaging of civilian populations has become all too common, basic due process has been ignored (leading to absurd legal dilemmas at Guantanamo), and torture has somehow come back up for debate.  At the same time, the official rallying cry had something to do with the promotion of liberty and democracy.  So I ask: By what means?  By the means of justice?  Or by the means of expediency, might, and the sword?

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.