Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

US Debates Issue of `Just War'

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

US Debates Issue of `Just War'

Article excerpt

RARELY in history has the war option provided so much time and information for thorough public debate.

The result has been a minimum of rancor and name-calling in favor of serious-minded discourse on the morality of going to war in the Persian Gulf.

When Congress finally voted on Saturday, it supported President Bush's position, but with much the same share of doubt and dissent that is reflected in public opinion surveys. Much of the debate has followed the traditional moral framework for weighing "just" wars.

President Bush's own rationale has shifted, at least in emphasis, toward moral arguments. In the first few days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the president spoke of the threat Saddam Hussein represented to the "American way of life." He was referring to the threat, in particular, to the American standard of living should Iraq seize control of Saudi oil fields as well as Kuwait's.

Weeks later, Secretary of State James Baker III made an even more direct appeal to the economic self-interest of Americans when he said the Gulf confrontation was about protecting jobs.

By the time Mr. Bush made a televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 11, he was no longer making pocketbook appeals. His case was for fighting to protect a new, more cooperative and harmonious, world order against a reckless aggressor.

The new world order that Bush sees at stake here is one under which the international community can unite massively to put down a rogue aggressor. During the cold war, the superpowers suppressed regional conflicts in their efforts to contain each other's sphere of influence.

Iraq has provided the first test of whether a post-cold war stability can be achieved on the basis of cooperation and international law. The character of Saddam Hussein makes this a stark test, with few moral ambiguities.

One concern is certainly stopping Saddam Hussein himself. While few people believe he threatens the world on a Hitlerian scale, the lesson of Hitler was that he could have been stopped early, that appeasement led him on. Concern over UN's role

Another concern is establishing the usefulness of the United Nations for collective security in the world. If the UN allows Iraq to escape with aggression, says John Gaddis, a diplomatic historian, it will go the way of the League of Nations after it failed to respond to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

Another, similar concern is setting an example showing that aggression doesn't pay in the post-cold war world. At root, the argument for risking the lives of American, Iraqi, and other soldiers in this confrontation is that it will save lives in the long run - as well as the sovereignty of nations.

Some people are skeptical that this is Bush's true motivation. Among the skeptics are those picketing the White House and disrupting the Senate debate with the slogan, "No blood for oil," implying that the impending war is to keep the price or control of oil in friendly hands. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.