|
"Attack
Iraq? Never!" Revisited
by David
R. Larson
Spectrum:
The Journal of the Association of Adventist Forums recently posted a
feature column by me entitled "Attack Iraq? Never!" at www.spectrummagazine.org.
Because it is becoming evident that I did not express myself as clearly as
I wish, I am taking this opportunity to try again.
That article
attempted to make two points. The first was that the United States
should never attack Iraq. The second was that it should not
oust Saddam Hussein and his supporters from power at this time.
The difference and coherence of these two points rests upon a distinction
I made between "attacking Iraq," on the one hand, and
"ousting Saddam Hussein," on the other. I reserved the
first term for intentional strikes against the noncombatant men, women and
children of Iraq and the second for the removal of the regime that
currently rules them.
I reiterate
now what I stated then: I can see no ethical justification for
intentionally wounding or killing noncombatant civilians in military
conflict even though my nation and others have repeatedly done so in the
past. Everyone agrees that there is a factual difference between
military and non-military personnel. The claim that it is always
ethically unacceptable intentionally to strike the second is more
controversial in some discussions.
Despite my awareness that some dismiss it as a vacuous quibble, I believe
that this ethical distinction is vital, particularly in cases like this
one.
We have
inherited ethical guidelines about how we should wage war, if we are
ethically justified in doing so. One of these is that we should not
intentionally harm or kill noncombatant men, women and children.
Those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 disregarded
this norm with cunning and effective evil. If we also ignore it in
our reactions to them, we will be no better than they are. This will
be defeat, not victory. This is why I hold that we should
"never attack Iraq." By this I mean that we should never
intentionally strike its civilian citizens.
We have also
inherited guidelines as to whether we are ethically justified in waging
war in circumstances like this one, even if we were to do so in an
ethically appropriate manner. If there is to be war, we have been
taught, it must be (1) fought for a just cause, (2) declared by the proper
authorities, (3) waged with proper intentions, (4) possess a reasonable
chance for success, and (5) be proportionate to the wrongs it attempts to
correct.
I argued in
the previous article that the requirements for only the fourth of these
criteria are now met and that therefore we should not oust Saddam Hussein
at this time. This leaves the door open to the possibility of taking
action against his regime at some subsequent moment, if and when the ethical
criteria for doing so have been met.
Margareth Lenoir, who responded from the
Netherlands to the earlier article, pointed out that if we take into
account the current uncertainty as to what will follow the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, even the requirements of the fourth norm have not
yet been met. The more I listen to the debates, and the more I think
about it, the more convinced I am that she is correct. This makes it
even more appropriate to proceed slowly and with much caution!
As a practical matter,
it would seem unwise for any American administration to launch a war when
there is so much disagreement about doing so among its own administration,
military leaders and international allies.
Our choices are not
merely those of either ousting Saddam Hussein or doing nothing. As
we discovered in our long contest with the former Soviet Union, which was
at least as great a danger to us then as Saddam Hussein's regime is to us
now, there are many alternatives between these contrary extremes.
Let's exhaust them before launching another war! |