Saturday, June 19, 2004
Others calling for revisions to the just war doctrine
Over on the Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan), an emailer writes that the WMD intelligence failures do not weaken the case for preventive wars like the one in Iraq; rather the failures strengthen the case:
While I can't argue with the logic in the specific, the idea of using a country's nature as a guide for preemption is a dangerous precedent writ large. What's to stop China from doing the same with South Korea or Taiwan (other than presumably the US military)? In effect my fear is, when permitting yourself to make an extension to just war, you are in effect permitting everyone else to do the same. For the forseeable future, I trust that the US would properly apply the "nature of a state" criterion, but I can't say that I would trust many other countries.
All the more reason for an in depth reconsideration of just war theory. Unfortunately, like many social theories, this one will probably have to be discovered through trial and error.
Comments(0) |
Regardless of what particular mistakes were made, the degree to which the CIA came up short reveals a larger truth: This type of intelligence problem is fundamentally impossible to solve with the precision necessary to support a security policy based on traditional "imminent threat" criteria. Whether Saddam's WMD capabilties were overestimated or underestimated is a peripheral issue. What is essential is that we didn't - and probably couldn't - know for sure what those capabilities were.In effect, if your ability to know the capabilities and intentions of your enemy is limited, then it is only prudent to lower your threshold for preemptive action.
Contrary to the assertions of many who opposed war in Iraq, this epistemological limitation does not argue for the abandonment of a preemptive doctrine. In fact, it argues for yet greater urgency in the preventive (yes, preventive) elimination of regimes that have the potential to use WMD or supply them to other actors. The definitive intelligence issue for this doctrine is not what specific weapons programs, terrorist links, or ill intentions a certain state might possess, but rather the nature of that state. That is a question that is readily answerable and is therefore a more valid guide to ethical decision-making on issues of war and peace.
Just war doctrine has long rejected this line of reasoning, as it could provide pretexts for endless wars of agression. But times have changed. The civilized world can no longer safely permit governments like Saddam's to exist.
While I can't argue with the logic in the specific, the idea of using a country's nature as a guide for preemption is a dangerous precedent writ large. What's to stop China from doing the same with South Korea or Taiwan (other than presumably the US military)? In effect my fear is, when permitting yourself to make an extension to just war, you are in effect permitting everyone else to do the same. For the forseeable future, I trust that the US would properly apply the "nature of a state" criterion, but I can't say that I would trust many other countries.
All the more reason for an in depth reconsideration of just war theory. Unfortunately, like many social theories, this one will probably have to be discovered through trial and error.
Comments(0) |
