[macintologist]

by Jacob G. Hornberger

As the debacle of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq continues to spiral downward, sucking countless more people into its death throes, some of those whose philosophy contributed to the fiasco remain steadfastly unrepentant for the death and destruction they have wrought.

Among the unrepentant is George Weigel, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which describes itself as “Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” The center’s website describes Weigel as “a Roman Catholic theologian and one of America’s leading commentators on issues of religion and public life.”

Weigel recently wrote an article entitled “Baghdad 2006=Tet 1968?” which was published in the December 7, 2006, issue of the Arlington Catholic Herald, the official newspaper for the Catholic Diocese of Arlington.

In his article, Weigel writes, “Reasonable people could, and did, differ about the prudence of the March 2003 invasion. My considered judgment remains that the allied action satisfied the conditions of a just war.” In support of his conclusion, Weigel points out that “the allied coalition that invaded Iraq had multiple goals: to depose a murderous regime, thereby ridding the world of a serious threat to international security; to empower the people of Iraq through a democratic process; and to create a new political model for the Arab-Islamic world.”

Unfortunately, in his article Weigel failed to note an important point: to achieve those political goals, U.S. military forces had to kill Iraqi people – in fact, large numbers of Iraqi people – people whose government never attacked the United States. The estimates of the number of Iraqi dead range from a “low” of 30,000, provided by President Bush, to a high of 650,000, provided by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

In arriving at his conclusion that the war on Iraq was warranted, Weigel is implicitly claiming that it is morally justifiable for U.S. soldiers, including Catholics, to kill Iraqi people (none of whom had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks) in order to achieve regime change in Iraq.

It would be difficult to find a more morally and ethically abominable and perverted view of human life than that. What Weigel is saying is that when measured against regime change in Iraq, the life of an Iraqi citizen – or the lives of thousands of Iraqis – is of only secondary importance.

One wonders whether there is even an upper limit to the number of Iraqi deaths that would cause Weigel to conclude that the Iraq War wasn’t warranted after all – or whether his opinion on the war would be different if the number of American deaths matched the number of Iraqi deaths.

Weigel’s position brings to mind the infamous response by former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, who was asked by 60 Minutes whether the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq had been worth it. She responded, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”

Why shouldn’t the issue of regime change have been left to the Iraqis, just as it was left to Eastern Europeans after U.S. officials delivered them into the clutches of the Soviet communists at the end of World War II? Under what moral or ethical authority does one nation impose involuntary regime change on another nation, especially when it will entail innocent people’s deaths in the process?

As the reality of the continuing carnage in Iraq becomes more vivid in the minds and consciences of the American people, Americans would be wise to reflect not on whether regime change in Iraq has been “successful,” but instead on the following two principles: (1) It is morally and ethically wrong to invade and occupy countries that have not attacked the United States; and (2) It is morally and ethically wrong for one nation to subordinate human life to the achievement of regime change in another nation.

December 16, 2006

I find it sickening how this government gives human life such low regard and I find it utter sickening AND hypocritical when our self-professed Christian politicians declare their support for state-sanctioned murder.

[Kevin]

I think it's SICKENING that either side would use the death of people for political shilling.

[Atomic Rooster]

I hate Catholics!

Nuns still give me nightmares about brimstone and torture never ending of Hell.

Beotches!

[dcmacdaddy]

by Jacob G. Hornberger

SNIP

As the reality of the continuing carnage in Iraq becomes more vivid in the minds and consciences of the American people, Americans would be wise to reflect not on whether regime change in Iraq has been “successful,” but instead on the following two principles: (1) It is morally and ethically wrong to invade and occupy countries that have not attacked the United States; and (2) It is morally and ethically wrong for one nation to subordinate human life to the achievement of regime change in another nation.

December 16, 2006

I just wanted to address these two points.

As to question number (1), we did the exact same thing in Vietnam by "invading and occupying a country that did not attack the United States" to prevent it from becoming a place where an attack against the United States could be launched. It was a similar manifestation of the "Pre-emption Doctrine" advanced by the Bush Administration; Except in the case of Vietnam the concern with pre-emption was not about a direct attack on the US by Vietnam but rather "pre-empting" Vietnam from becoming a proxy for the Soviet Union to launch an attack on the US.

As to question (2), the value of human life is always made subordinate to geo-political goals (be they regime change or defeating/repelling an enemy invader) during a war. I think the more interesting questions to be asked--and a question that has some potential for an interesting logical debate--is whether "regime change" is a valuable geo-political objective in deciding whether or not to go to war.

Take Iraq for example, instead of advocating for regime change what if went in there explicitly to colonize the country and force it to assume the Western (Capitalism-intensive) model of Democracy? How would our plans have been a) carried out differently and b) received differently by the Iraqi people if this was our stated goal? I actually think there would have been less civilian blood-shed, and less fighting between rival factions, if instead of pushing Iraqis to form a government of their own we gave them a ready-made structure with our chosen leaders to rule over them. We could have taken over the Iraqi army and Ba'ath political party and forced them to work in our new governing structure. They would still have a voice, but instead of answering to a despotic tyrant they would be answering to a leader behold to yet a higher power structure. Then, I think, the role of our military would be to act as a deterrent against those who would opposed the puppet government and not as the de facto security structure for the country and we would have a lot less American soldiers dead.


Take note, this is a series of ideas raised, and suggestions made, in response to the second point in the passage of the original post I quoted. Before replying to my post assuming these are ideas for which I am an advocate, note that know-where in my post have I said I endorsed or opposed these ideas. I have only raised them as on possible alternative scenario for how the US could have invaded Iraq using a plan different from the one we did use to invade Iraq.

If anyone thinks my response is to tangential to the topic at hand let me know and I will start a different thread on the matter. As for the thrust of the original posters comments, it is indeed startling that a political party so committed to the ideas of "life" would be so willing to take life on the battle-field and in the execution chamber. But, I think those who would defend this seeming dichotomy would argue that the "right to life" is different in different contexts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As to question (2), the value of human life is always made subordinate to geo-political goals (be they regime change or defeating/repelling an enemy invader) during a war.

It's a real stretch to refer to defending your land against an invader as "geo-political goals." That aside though, it does seem that the author's principle 2 is nothing more than a corollary of principle 1, namely that it's wrong to start a war and of the 2 sides fighting in any particular war, there is one "right" side and that is the side that didn't initiate it.

[vmarks]

Is it?

It's a geo-political goal to continue to survive when attacked.

It is popular in some parts of the world for people to suggest that this geo-political goal isn't desirable or necessary, and that people who insist on it should let it drop and instead die. Oh, they don't always say that last part aloud, but it's the conclusion one can draw.

There is such a thing as a just war. When confronted with one, people who possess the opinion I just mentioned have difficulty determining who initiated the war and instead resort to describing a 'cycle of violence' or an 'oppressive empire on the march.'

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As to question (2), the value of human life is always made subordinate to geo-political goals (be they regime change or defeating/repelling an enemy invader) during a war.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's a real stretch to refer to defending your land against an invader as "geo-political goals." That aside though, it does seem that the author's principle 2 is nothing more than a corollary of principle 1, namely that it's wrong to start a war and of the 2 sides fighting in any particular war, there is one "right" side and that is the side that didn't initiate it.

Good point. I did phrase that statement poorly. Let me re-phrase the sentence as follows.

"As to question (2), the value of human life is always made subordinate to geo-political goals (be they regime change) or self-defense (defeating/repelling an enemy invader) during a war."

[Spliffdaddy]

defending your nation and its citizens from disruption of its freedom or way of life is not a geopolitical goal, but a basic human right.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

defending your nation and its citizens from disruption of its freedom or way of life is not a geopolitical goal, but a basic human right.

Invading another country that didn't attack you /= defending your nation from extinction

[Uncle Skeleton]

Defense of others is a short step from self-defense. It could be argued that Saddam was killing Iraqis at a higher rate than they are dying now.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It could be argued that Saddam was killing Iraqis at a higher rate than they are dying now.

And how is that relevant? We are talking about America, right?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Invading another country that didn't attack you /= defending your nation from extinction

Kicking the ass of a country that is seeking ways to hurt you = common sense.