Not the most blithe post on this site (consider yourself warned)

A few bloggers have been wrestling with the war. I’ve tried to avoid posting about it too much, as I don’t have much to say that’s especially edifying and nothing that hasn’t been said better elsewhere. That being said, I’m a hawk. I think the West has exhausted the options short of war for dealing with the Baathists (Saddam Hussein together with his regime and their quasi-secular pan-Arab associates such as Hamas). I realize that the West has a large share of blame in the ongoing existence of the Baathists (generally in opposition to the influence of Iran and Hezbollah), but I don’t find that to be a reason that the West should facilitate the continuation of Baathist terror. I find the analogies to Europe in 1938 rather convincing. I would say, though, that the current threat is probably worse than the threat faced by my parents’ generation due to (1) the advanced technology available to current foes and (2) the current foes’ demonstrated disregard for the consequences of highly destructive actions. No one has demonstrated that there’s any likelihood that delaying action against the Baathists will do anything to reduce the danger they posse to the world economy and all people within the range of their weapons – a range that is growing.

Much of the Church’s contemporary teaching on war arises from the destruction that was wrought by the world wars and, especially, by the US’ use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Church has used very strong terms to condemn the use of nuclear weapons. Most Americans don’t find Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be worthy of the strongest condemnations. Most Americans, though, haven’t had much exposure to the devastation that is modern warfare. Many of those who have formed the Church’s most recent teachings on just war have seen that devastation and have struggled to bring healing to those whose lives were shattered.

It’s often said that too many generals spend too much time preparing for the last war -- they don’t necessarily consider the latest adaptations of technology and tactics. In this case, I respectfully submit that the opponents of this war are opposing an obsolete model of war. Yes, this war will result in the deaths of many. The way that the American military has prepared itself, though, mitigates the suffering of civilians and even of most enemy soldiers. It’s been widely reported that the goal is to disable command and control functions and secure the surrender of enemy forces. Extensive plans are underway to prevent the Baathists from staging a pyrrhic campaign of destruction. Most casualties of war come not in combat, but from the famine and disease that travel in the wake of war. The Afghan model (and other recent interventions) show that the soldiers will be followed in rather short order by food aid and medical help – the very things that will reduce the damage to the Iraqi people. (I might add that these are in short supply in Iraq right now since the regime refuses to do what is necessary to bring an end to economic sanctions.)

The biggest risk associated with the war is the risk that the Baathists will use weapons of mass destruction. As I mentioned above, that risk isn’t reduced by keeping the Baathists in power.

One of the keynotes of recent Catholic teaching on international relations is the focus on the use of an international forum such as the United Nations. On SEVENTEEN occasions the UN has demanded that the Iraqi Baathist regime disarm. On many of those SEVENTEEN occasions, a threat of “grave consequences” has been attached to the demand. If anyone has damaged the ability of the international forum to resolve disputes, it is the regime that has failed on SEVENTEEN occasions to do what is required of it regarding disarmament.

This war is a grim and solemn duty. Failure to prosecute it fully and vigorously would be vastly grimmer. If, though, someone can provide convincing evidence that jus ad bellum is somehow absent from the current plans, I’m open to the argument.