Ethics in Iraq
by P.J. Tigue

Now that we have seen bloodied and frightened American prisoners of war paraded in front of Iraqi television cameras, a belated debate has sprung up among the chattering classes concerning the rules of war and the notion of a "just war." It is a standard topic in times of conflict, but it is never predictable: War's ethics can vary as much as its geography, technology or strategy. Nor is it a relatively new phenomenon; the just war rationale stretches back at least as far as the 4th-century Christian thinker St. Augustine.

After Rome fell to the Goths in 410, Augustine published "The City of God" in which he sought to balance his faith with the political realities of the day. He did this by drawing a distinction between what he called the eternal "City of God" and the finite "City of Man." In doing so he was trying to answer Christian reservations about the violence necessary to defend Rome (and Christendom) against invading pagan forces. Drawing on elements of Greek thought, Augustine concluded that because the City of Man is by nature imperfect, Christians can indeed engage in just warfare to defend their way of life.

Since then, just war theory has taken many twists and turns, perhaps treated most famously by Michael Walzer in his 1977 book, "Just and Unjust Wars," regarded as a modern classic for its attempt to form moral absolutes regarding proper conduct in warfare. For Walzer and other modern thinkers, just war theory divides into two parts. The first, jus ad bellum, or the "justice of war," concerns the rationale for war itself. The second, jus in bello, or the "justice in war," deals with the actual use of force during a conflict.

To satisfy jus ad bellum, a war's causes must be just, the expected good of the war must exceed the expected evil, those initiating the war must do so with proper authority, the combatants must aim for an equitable peace, the war must have a reasonable chance of success and the waging of the war must be a last resort. To satisfy jus in bello, the theory stipulates two absolute conditions. First, noncombatants must be protected from attack; second, the force used must not exceed that needed to complete the task.

It's doubtful that any war waged at any time in human history has met all of these criteria, but a case can still be made that there are times when war has been waged in as just a manner as possible. Take the American action against the Taliban. Despite the wrong-headed protestations offered by the likes of Howard Zinn — who said in The Progressive in December 2001 that "not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called 'a war against terrorism'" and that the American action in Afghanistan "has become a war against innocent men, women and children" — the war met many, if not all, of the just war criteria.

The war was just in that it sought to stamp out a repressive regime and rid the world of a fanatical organization whose stated purpose was to kill innocents; the United States acted with the blessing of the world community (including France, whose military took part in the action); its aim was to ensure the safety of civilians the world over; and war was indeed the last resort as it's doubtful Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar was much interested in bargaining.

Regarding the waging of the war, as much care as possible was exercised in keeping civilians away from harm, and the force expended was appropriate to fighting an enemy firmly entrenched in defensive positions. Did civilians die? Certainly. Were civilians targeted? Absolutely not. Thus, many commentators, including many affirmed pacifists, including scholar Richard Falk, chair of the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, supported the war. Indeed, Falk concluded in The Nation that it was the first just war since World War II.

The present war, although so far no more ghastly than the fighting in Afghanistan, cuts closer to the hearts of Americans because it's the heaviest sustained ground combat our troops have faced in recent memory, and we're now faced with images of our own soldiers laying bloodied and broken in the deserts of the Middle East. Just war criteria runs into some serious trouble in Iraq, however, as many of the tenets, if not completely ignored by the Bush administration, are at least murkier.

Is the cause just? The case can be made both ways: The Iraqi people would likely be much better off (given the absence of warlordism and tribal infighting) if they were rid of Hussein's tyrannical regime. But overthrowing the head of a recognized member of the UN is patently illegal under international law (although that didn't stop Poppy Bush in Panama, either). Does the expected good of the war exceed the expected evil? Again, a tough one. We can go back to the first argument, and add to that the possibility that Hussein has chemical or biological weapons which he may use (or sell) at a later date, causing untold carnage. Countering this supposition (and it's a big "if") is the rage that the war is causing on the "Arab street," which may lead to regional instability and further terrorist attacks on innocents. Do those initiating the war do so with proper authority? If you believe in the international rule of law, no. Do the combatants aim for an equitable peace? Yes, if you accept the rationalizations of the American and British leadership and assume that the two governments won't lose interest in the rebuilding of Iraq as quickly as they did in Afghanistan. Does the war have a reasonable chance of success? Despite the recent setbacks, the outcome is almost assured, although winning the peace might prove far more costly than winning the war. Finally, was war the last resort? Unequivocally, we can say no. While inspections could not continue forever, and Hussein had to be dealt with in some way at some time, this war didn't need to be fought at this time.

And what of the jus in bello? Although civilians are not being targeted, there have been civilian causalities — mostly due to the bombing of Iraqi government buildings in heavily populated areas. If there is house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, one can expect civilian deaths to skyrocket if Iraqi forces use them as human shields as they have purportedly done in Basra. While the military has so far taken care to avoid civilian deaths, doing so is easily accommodated with its objectives as long as it is fighting in sparsely populated areas. Once the tanks reach Baghdad, however, hard choices will need to be made between civilian deaths and strategic objectives. Despite the rhetoric, all this seems of little concern to the Bush administration and the zeal with which they and their "coalition of the willing" are prosecuting the war, convinced of the moral absolutes they themselves have constructed.

If the war could have been avoided, it should have been. If significant civilian deaths will almost assuredly be a consequence of pursuing a military objective, then pursuing that objective is a violation of the theory. There may be many nice, ethical reasons to have launched this war of choice, but just war is not a game of horseshoes: Close just isn't good enough.

E-mail P.J. Tigue at pjtigue@yahoo.com.