To cite but one example, I don't think anyone understands any longer what the word "proportionate" means in "proportionate response." My sense is that when the term is tossed around, what people are thinking is that if Hamas fires a few rockets into Israel, Israel may only toss a few rockets back in response. But that's to set Just War teaching on its head, since it is simply re-introducing the law of the Talion the teaching is meant to replace. The question is: proportionate to what? The answer isn't proportionate to what your enemy did to you (an eye for an eye), but proportionate to your end -- repelling him from your border, preventing further attack, or what have you.
All that by way of lengthy introduction to a several-part exchange between Robert Reilly & Russell Shaw on whether the Iraq War was/is a Just War. (Links are to the opening salvos, and the conversation continues here, here & here.) It's the most useful exchange I've seen: no stupid cant and no name-calling. What's interesting is that the two agree on all the principles (please, Doves, note Shaw's defense in principle of "preventive war") --but they interpret the facts on the ground differently. Shaw quotes himself from an interview given days before the war began:
Leaving aside rhetoric and name-calling -- and there has been plenty of both in this debate -- the main reason for the difference concerns differing prudential judgments. President Bush and his people believe the consequences of not going to war -- especially the risk of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ending up in the hands of terrorists -- would significantly outweigh the bad consequences. The Holy Father and his people clearly believe that whatever good might come from overthrowing Saddam Hussein would not be proportionate to the bad results, such as provoking more terrorism, adding fuel to the burgeoning Christian-Muslim conflict already being played out in other areas of the world, and causing long-term damage to the United Nations and the international common good. For the most part, I think the Vatican and the White House share the same moral principles, but they disagree about the likely outcomes of various courses of action.Bravo! I find Reilly more persuasive (surprise!), precisely because I interpret the facts on the ground as he does and not as Shaw does, but see what you think.
And for more, George Weigel has a book forthcoming on the topic: Faith, Reason & the War Against Jijadism.
