![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Define "just."
Mar. 23rd, 2003 02:57 pmSome friends of mine were having a debate about what makes a war "just" and we came up with the following requirements:
1. A just cause. Well, removal of Saddam would bring stability to the region, improve conditions for the Iraqis (assuming we can get something resembling democracy established), and generally get rid of a wild card. Also he's in direct violation of the disarmarment treaty, a requirement for leaving him in power last time we were there, and has been for some time. So let's say for the moment we've got that.
2. With just intentions. This one's hard to call. If Bush is being truthful, we're going in to yank Saddam, start a democracy, etc. If some of his critics are right, we're going in for the sweet, sweet oil (or to boost popularity, or whatever). We may only be sure in hindsight.
3. Using just means of fighting. That means no deliberately targeting civilians, no torture of prisoners, no weapons designed deliberately to cause pain, and so on. Again, too soon to call, but Bush et. al. are certainly making a big deal about their precision weapons being designed to AVOID Iraqi civilians.
4. A hope of success. I was initially surprised when this one was proposed, but it made sense. No point in wasting life if you're going to lose in the end anyway. Still, I'd say we've got this one covered. (Iraq is another matter entirely.)
5. Proportionality. Meaning the ratio of our losses to their losses. If you get something like 1:100, you're definitely into the overkill range. Tricky subject, depending on how gung ho we get; I'll need a death toll from Baghdad to know if we're crossing the line, but considering the number of Iraqis in the field surrendering rather than fighting, we're doing decent so far.
6. Last resort. I've heard people arguing that we've given Saddam ten years to disarm and he hasn't, so yes, we're out of options. I've also heard people arguing that it's not a last resort because we could have let him do what he wanted and it likely wouldn't have affected us one bit. Your call on this one.
7. Leaving a surrender option. This one we've clearly got. Bush has made his terms for surrender clear, both for individual soldiers and for Iraq as a whole, multiple times.
8. Declared by a just authority. Okay, now we're getting into whether the UN or the US has more right to call the situation. Frankly, I don't know enough about UN politics to be sure, but they never stopped us before. *shrug*
1. A just cause. Well, removal of Saddam would bring stability to the region, improve conditions for the Iraqis (assuming we can get something resembling democracy established), and generally get rid of a wild card. Also he's in direct violation of the disarmarment treaty, a requirement for leaving him in power last time we were there, and has been for some time. So let's say for the moment we've got that.
2. With just intentions. This one's hard to call. If Bush is being truthful, we're going in to yank Saddam, start a democracy, etc. If some of his critics are right, we're going in for the sweet, sweet oil (or to boost popularity, or whatever). We may only be sure in hindsight.
3. Using just means of fighting. That means no deliberately targeting civilians, no torture of prisoners, no weapons designed deliberately to cause pain, and so on. Again, too soon to call, but Bush et. al. are certainly making a big deal about their precision weapons being designed to AVOID Iraqi civilians.
4. A hope of success. I was initially surprised when this one was proposed, but it made sense. No point in wasting life if you're going to lose in the end anyway. Still, I'd say we've got this one covered. (Iraq is another matter entirely.)
5. Proportionality. Meaning the ratio of our losses to their losses. If you get something like 1:100, you're definitely into the overkill range. Tricky subject, depending on how gung ho we get; I'll need a death toll from Baghdad to know if we're crossing the line, but considering the number of Iraqis in the field surrendering rather than fighting, we're doing decent so far.
6. Last resort. I've heard people arguing that we've given Saddam ten years to disarm and he hasn't, so yes, we're out of options. I've also heard people arguing that it's not a last resort because we could have let him do what he wanted and it likely wouldn't have affected us one bit. Your call on this one.
7. Leaving a surrender option. This one we've clearly got. Bush has made his terms for surrender clear, both for individual soldiers and for Iraq as a whole, multiple times.
8. Declared by a just authority. Okay, now we're getting into whether the UN or the US has more right to call the situation. Frankly, I don't know enough about UN politics to be sure, but they never stopped us before. *shrug*
