Belaboring The Point

On the theory of in for a dime, in for a dollar, here are a few more questions I'd like to see moral theologians tease out the answers to (besides those formulated here, here and here). I raise these points not to be contentious, but because I really think there's a contribution to be made in thinking these issues through methodically. It would be much more valuable than the current Pope's naive/you're a heretic model of Catholic Just War debate.

• “Pre-emption.” Arguably the biggest mistake the Bush Administration made in the approach to the Iraq War was releasing a foreign policy document prior to the war which described a doctrine of “pre-emption.” No doubt the document was released with an eye toward intimidating our foes, and maybe it (together with evidence in Afghanistan that we were serious) is responsible for the sudden turn-around of Muammar Qaddafi and President Musharraf’s deciding to be our friend. One could argue it’s had the desired effect. However, in my view it has also had the unfortunate effect of freaking many people of good will out. Myself included.
  
  The word “pre-emption” challenges everything I ever believed about US foreign policy; our nuclear doctrine was predicated on “second-strike” capacity (that is, the presumption the US would not be an aggressor, but would maintain an arsenal large enough to be able to retaliate against a nuclear strike –hopefully thereby deterring one). The very idea that the US was announcing it intended to be an aggressor offended me deeply. I couldn’t get my mind around the idea that it could be right to strike another nation because of what it might do. I wasn’t blogging then, but Mr. Weed can testify that I came kicking and screaming into support for the Iraq War.
  But think it through. Just War theory prohibits a nation from merely retaliatory strikes (killing some of them because they killed some of you); what’s permitted is self-defense. Defense against what? You can’t defend against past attacks, only future ones–and isn’t that pre-emption? Nobody (well, maybe Pat Buchanan) seriously questions the justice of fighting WWII, but we declared war on Germany not because it attacked us, but because it seemed on course to do so in the future. Wasn’t that preemption? Rather than getting hung up on the term, I’d like to see someone (or several someones) think methodically about preemption and whether it isn’t finally just a fancy word for self-defense. I think it was a mistake to call Iraq a preemptive war; it isn't. It's the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the conditions of an armistice --the breakdown, after 12 years of daily provocation-- of a ceasefire.
• What are the implications of the right and duty of self-defense when threatened with weapons of mass destruction? We reason easily about the just use of such weapons (hardly any); I’ve never seen a discussion about the responsibilities of nations to protect their citizens from such weapons.
• Is relief of a civilian population a proper concern when deciding whether to go to war or isn’t it? Classical Just War theory always included this concern –it was high on Augustine and Aquinas’ lists of just reasons to go to war. It certainly figured prominently in US entrance into WWII. Cardinal Ratzinger has spoken of it in connection with the Allied liberation of Germany

  [t]he only way to shatter this cycle of crime and reestablish the rule of law was an intervention by the whole world. . . . Here it is clear that the intervention of the Allies was a bellum iustum, a "just war" . . . perhaps the clearest example in all history of a just war.

  The clearest example of a just war for Cardinal Ratzinger is not a defensive war, but a corrective one if you will. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t mention this justification. The Catechism is authoritative but not definitive (exhaustive), and Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said that certain parts of it are better and more thorough than others. So was this liberation accidentally or deliberately omitted? If humanitarian relief can be a valid reason to go to war, when, and under what circumstances? Why couldn’t support for the Iraq war be justified on humanitarian grounds alone (my main reason for supporting it), considering how brutally Saddam Hussein treated his people? If it is not a valid consideration, why not? And in that case, on what ground did the Vatican support intervention in Bosnia and does it call for intervention in Sudan? I’m not trying to be snide, here. Presumably the Vatican has good reasons for its judgments –but I’ve no idea what they might be, and a useful contribution to Just War theory would be an elucidation of the principles being followed.
• How does a sovereign nation justly defend itself against terrorists? Is it illegitimate to strike back when your enemy is using human shields? Why or why not? Does it make a difference whether or not the population is collaborating with the terrorists? Are there other factors that make a difference? The Vatican supported the U.S. war in Afghanistan, but not Israel’s war in Lebanon. What are the differences? Was this for reasons pertaining to the execution of war, or because of different political situations on the ground?

Just asking. At any rate, I'm tired of the easy assumption that the Catholic hawks don't care about peace or human lives. For my own part, it's precisely love and concern for millions of people living in slavery in the Middle East that causes me to support the war, and prayer and sacrifice for the conversion of our enemies and for the salvation of their souls is something that obsesses my mind. I literally danced for joy when we caught Saddam, but my heart breaks at the thought of his sons and people like al-Zarqawi facing eternity with their crimes on their souls -- I pray for them constantly. I submit my conscience to the correction of the Church in these matters, but I say to all the "dove" columnists that I look forward to the day when my questions are met with answers with which to undertake that correction, rather than smug disapproval.