Preemption and JustWar: Considering the Case of Iraq

Abstract

This article demonstrates that use of military force by Bush Administration against regime of Saddam Hussein does not meet ethical criteria for set forth in classical Just War tradition. It considers ethical questions raised by US-led attack against Iraq as part of war against global terrorism and argues that doctrine of preemptive war as applied in case of Iraq fails crucial ethical tests. Could Operation Iraqi Freedom and global war on terrorista be as pivotal in history of ethical decisionmaking as emergence of nationstate in Peace of Westphalia in 1648? Do new ethics for war on terror sever fourth-century Augustinian roots of Just War theory and ties to Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica 700 years later? Could first major war of 21st century inaugurate a revolution in ethical decisionmaking about warfare, justifying a new set of criteria for preemption of preventive war? Answers to these questions hinge on whether or not doctrine of preemption matures into new ethical criteria. Such criteria would build not on foundations for constraining unavoidable human violence, but stretch toward a vision of an ideal of liberty that justifies selective killing of some to achieve a greater good of liberty for many others. This emerging ethic installs States as guardian of a universal, even transcendent, cause of freedom and ultimate arbiter in that cause. (1) This article applies classic categories of Just War tradition to doctrine of preemption as advanced by current Administration in justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It does not address range of other explanations for and postures toward war outside Just War tradition. Specifically, it does not develop details of three other major ways to think about war: * Realism, belief that war is essentially a matter of power, self-interest, and necessity, largely making moral analysis irrelevant. * Holy War, belief that war is an instrument of divine power and that individuals, groups, or nations apply decisions about violence to coerce or destroy those opposing divine will. * Pacifism, belief that all war is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. (2) The article begins with a summary of national security debate as expressed in buildup to war against Iraq, including views of policy experts and decisionmakers, ethicists and academics. Second, it considers Just War ethical frameworks and definitions for two facets of warfare: justice in going to war (jus ad bellum) and justice in conduct of war (jus in bello), focusing on six criteria of jus ad bellum. In its attack on Iraq, Bush Administration redefined criteria for preemptive and preventive war that do not satisfy criteria established in classical Just War tradition and may signal development of an emerging ethic. Preemption, Prevention, and National Security Strategy Debate When National Security Strategy was published by Bush Administration in 2002, one of its most notable shifts specified a doctrine or principle of preemption. Preemption--and, more notably, preventive war--exploded onto scene of ethical debate as a major change in US security strategy. The 2002 National Security Strategy asserted, United States has long maintained option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security, and the States will, if necessary, act preemptively. (3) This argument is moot if one sees context of war against Iraq as a continuation of 1991 Desert Storm war, as does ethicist Thomas Nichols, Chairman of Strategy and Policy at US Naval War College, and as Joint Chiefs of Staff may have. (4) Professor Nichols presents an appeal for debate about how 2003 attack against Iraq is a proper application of jus in bello. …