Unjust War, Good Outcomes

While on every other issue I find the Ethics Notebook column of John Kavanaugh, S.J., illuminating, I can never manage to parse the logic of his argument when he turns to the topic of just war. His column “Unjust War, Good Outcomes” (5/19) is a case in point. He begins by asserting that “the end does not justify the means.” Since all wars bring great evil in their wake, does that make all wars unjust? In previous columns Father Kavanaugh hints (but never says outright) that such is his view. But in his most recent column he seems to argue on terms defined by the just-war tradition, in which case his invocation of the shibboleth about ends not justifying means is either rendered moot or needs nuancing.

This nuance he seems to supply by asserting that the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki violated the norms of conduct in a just war (jus in bello). Of course, no cities were obliterated in the recent war in Iraq, although Father Kavanaugh brings into his moral calculus “the plight of even one Iraqi child dismembered or dissolved by a bomb meant for someone else.” But if the unintended killing of even one child retroactively renders a war immoral, why bother mentioning Dresden and Nagasaki? Why not invoke the same principle with World War II and condemn the Allies for the death of just one dead German or Japanese child?

Finally, Father Kavanaugh seems certain that the future bodes only ill as a consequence of the war: Disneyland will be bombed, Iraqis will grow restive, etc. Perhaps, but even a worst-case scenario would be hard pressed to weigh down the scales to make the overthrow of Saddam Hussein not seem worth the price. (Estimates of the number of corpses in Hussein’s mass graves now reach 300,000.) Who knows what the future will bring? But one cannot fail to note that India and Pakistan have now exchanged ambassadors, for the first time in over three years; and the heads of government of Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt are now meeting face to face.

But the ultimate problem with Father Kavanaugh’s analysis, as with all those who continue to maintain a retrospective opposition to the war is their collective failure to face this conundrum: one cannot greet the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and simultaneously say the war in Iraq lacked justification.

The writer is the Chester and Margaret Paluch Professor of Theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary.

As a new subscriber to America, I look forward to each issue, which is certain to be challenging, relevant and formative. I am not one who believes that politics has no place in a Catholic magazine, as I believe it is both impossible and inadvisable not to have our spiritual mettle temper our political thoughts and actions. I do, however, question the merit of giving editorial space to columns such as “No Questions, Please” (Terry Golway, 8/18) and “Bush’s Nuclear Folly” (Ronald E. Powaski, 8/4), which have no religious, spiritual, ethical or philosophical framework to them. These columns serve only as a forum for the authors’ opposition to the Bush administration. Please consider these columns against the backdrop of a column such as “Unjust War, Good Outcomes” (John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., 5/19), in which the author presents an intellectual opposition to the Iraq war that challenges readers to consider issues of ethics and to think beyond the author’s opinions.

America magazine is a wonderful resource for thinking Catholics. I ask the editors to please continue to present columns and articles that will challenge readers and help us to think for ourselves rather than columns that simply express the author’s editorial viewpoint on political issues.

This letter is in reference to “Unjust War, Good Outcomes” (5/19), by John F. Kavanaugh, S.J. The recondite philosophical analysis of just war theory in the case of Iraq ranks close behind the “angels dancing on the pin” issue. Why not ask how many Iraqis need to be raped and have their tongues cut out before some soreheads can feel better about losing the last election?

Is it really correct to use morality and just war theory to protect evildoers while they kill and torture thousands of innocents? Is it good sense to search so hard for a rationale to condemn those with the better spirit while injustice runs rampant?

Why not look at other alternatives, such as whether “war” is even the best term to describe the Iraqi action before getting carried away with war theory? Or how about rationalizing on the basis of the “lesser of evils” theory?

Fr. Kavanaugh's position is simply "I'm. right, you're wrong"

The military action in Iraq. according to the Cathechism and Constitution of the United States was authorized by the proper parties: the Congress and the President. In the United Kingdom similar approval occurred.

It is claimed that Poland is the most Catholic country in Europe and it also supported the action very effectively with a group of its Special Forces.

President Clinton said in 1998 that we could not let Hussein acquire weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change our national policy. What did Fr. Kavanaugh think that meant?

The recondite philosophical analysis of just war theory in the Iraqi case ranks close behind the “angels dancing on the pin” issue. Why not ask how many Iraqis need to be raped and have their tongues cut out before some sore-heads can feel better about losing the last election?

Is it really correct to use morality and just war theory to protect evil-doers while they kill and torture thousands of innocents? Is it good sense to search so hard for a rationale to condemn those with the better spirit while injustice runs rampant?

Why not look at other alternatives, such as whether “war” is even the best term to describe the Iraqi action before getting carried away with war theory? Or, how about rationalizing on the basis of the “lesser of evils” theory?

How do you know when an action is right, good or just? How do you know its right? What makes it right? Do we get a feeling of completeness that fulfills a need? Is it our thinking where we sense it intuitively or consciously? Is it just a gut feeling where we know we are right? Is it consistent with the mores around us? Do we test it to see if the action has some universality? What does our conscience tell us? Is it a thought process where we check it out with our rules and principles? There are many descriptive ideas of how we can tell if an action is good. The consequentialist may look at the consequences of an act for determination. Utilitarianism looks for the lesser of two evils as he tries to minimize the bad and maximize the good. You may be deontological where you look to moral absolutes determined from rules and principles. Or you may be teleological, (telos= the goals of an action, where the ends justify the means where ends = do good, avoid evil.)

The just war theory has 5 major principles: 1)The cause must be just. Damn right! Saddam is, was an evil man. Wait, why was Afghanistan after the Russian invasion abandoned to all crazy people like Bin Laden to thrive? Oh, yeah maybe that’s a different subject! That is why the world was outraged by the atrocities and carnage done to human life. Illegal weapons of mass destruction … well that same USA had given Sadam the precursors to make the stuff decades before, at least the British press revealed that fact to a dumbfounded Donald Rumsfeld, the then Sec. of State. Didn’t get that one on CNN, huh? 2) War must declared by proper authority. Damn wrong! It is only God’s grace that makes everything possible. The desire for temporal possessions and power is not wrong or bad, it is natural for man to desire external things as means. What is wrong or bad is the immoderate desire, ‘greed’ or avarice, since it is this avarice that turns these things into ends, into gods. Thus, when a material thing or even a country is made into god, it becomes a devil. Please understand the actor is always good, it’s the performance that is often questionable. 3) All alternatives have to have been exhausted. Damn wrong! That is why the world was outraged at breaking the rules to suite your own national agenda. There was no way those cowboys were going to wait in the Gulf; they wanted to bring their war toys to shore. So much for pacifism, huh? So we’ll rationalize world diplomacy with a battle cry by saying Saddam can’t be trusted, and that these Iraqi people need us to provide their welcomed freedom. Like a decade ago? 4) There must be some chance of success. Damn right! There was no way Iraq was going to withstand the military post-modern laser-driven “freedom” fighters. 5) There must be proportion between benefit and the expected destruction. Damn right! Goes without saying, I still thank God for the quick victory without terrible casualties or massive loss of civilian life.

Will this great TV show of military power and resolve make for a safer world? Deeply saddened by the fact most of our kids, and some adults too saw it as a living room arcade game being played out unaware. The possible seriousness of games and play, and the possibly serious results, are well-known to anthropologists. “War” is really the grimmest of all games.

Besides in his “Yes to Life, No to Death,” our pope said, “No to war....” Doesn’t that mean anything to us Catholics?

Do good, avoid evil has a very, very rich meaning. How much bad can we tolerate and still do good? We should know that there are moral absolutes in our Church’s teaching. We can never torture anyone ever, no matter what the outcome. Why? Because no act we do should be intrinsically evil. The intended outcome should be a good outcome. The unintended although expected outcome may be a bad outcome. The good outcome is not caused by the bad outcome. The end does not justify the means. For instance, we cannot use death to eliminate

I cannot disagree more! The war was not unjust and we are losing the important part -- the post-war now! I'm not going to keep quiet because we are, currently, losing and something must be done. Your article is quite short-sighted. What you call "success" is more likely failure! You sound like the many that are still fighting the "completed" war (i.e. hostilities).

I justified our going to war for, at least, three reasons -- 1) humanitarian, 2) threat to peace & safety, 3) support the UN. I don't intend to argue -- your "plight of ... child(ren) dismembered" versus those currently being dug up or maimed by Saddam. Or, comparing Bush to Hitler. Or, Weigel's arguments in America magazine several months ago. Or, still trying to correct spilt blood over Nagasaki and other American situations over the last 200 years.

I believe that went to war to enforce the UN Res. #1441 (approved 15-0 in Nov.) to protect the integrity of, at least, our American word -- which the UN Security Council could not do for the UN. Major nations provided a great disservice to the UN and the free-world by backing down (once again) from Res. #1441 in January -- this, despite flagrant and continuing violations by Saddam. There is no doubt that is was "put up or shut up" time for "serious consequences" in January.

Yes, the UN could be considered the "proper authority". But, as in other cases (e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Korea), the US had to assert its authority to support the UN resolutions. Therefore, as the mightiest nation (economically, politically, and militarily), America has the authority AND the responsibility to use its resources for the common good. Then, according to pacifists, there is always one more "last resort". Saddam has had many such "one more last chances" over the past 12 years -- taking advantage of such sentiments. Finally, anyone that does not understand that, in today's globalized world, any nation (or group) -- with the history, means and intent of using weapons of mass destruction -- is not a "imminent threat" is living in the past of conventional wars.

Our current American failure is the loss of international support -- mainly via the UN. Yes, we have an imperialistic side of the Bush Administration (Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowicz) against the coalition building side (Powell-McCain-Shelton-Scowcroft & Bush, Sr.) -- with the empire builders winning. This must be fixed somehow! We cannot nation-build Iraq alone -- which is becoming more evident every week. We cannot, and should not, finance and maintain world order. This must be done through coalition building within the framework of the United Nations. America, with its strength shown (again) in the hostile part of the Iraqi war, must use this strength to support a co-operative world order in the UN. For this we must pray!

Although John Kavanaugh's point is that "Winning is not the determinant of good", his assertion of the recent war's immorality seems to beg the questions involved. Three points might well be added to this debate about the morality of war: the first would be that the application of ethical/moral principals derived from the personal realm to the social entity realm seems to be, at best, a stretch. Whether it be Nazi Germany or contemporary US, to assert that all the individual members of those political bodies acted in concert contradicts fact. To the extent that the activities of the people within these bodies do not act in concert, is the degree to which those bodies cannot be considered as entities. To assert that political bodies constitute an moral entity, brought to its logical conclusion would demand that those in decent should exit the political body – frequently neither practical nor desirable. Other intellectual approaches would seem to be recommended. Secondly, unless John Kavanaugh has other sources of information than I, his assertion about the lack of “imminent threat” appears to be beyond his experience. I do not advocate the abdication of responsibility of the individual to assess, as best he/she can, the reality within which he/she exists. But the mark of such assessment is the admission of ignorance where it exists. I certainly was ignorant of the imminent threat that resulted in 9/11 but the threat very definitely was there but for me to have asserted that there was no threat would have been highly inappropriate. Lastly, if one were to apply his criteria of proper authority to the individual sphere, the good Samaritan should have left his fellow traveler in the ditch. There was no indication that the beaten individual would die right away, certainly the Samaritan did not have proper authority from either of the societies involved – they were not supposed to help one another, and the robbers had already left. Proper authority is a very tenuous concept: Does the Voice of the Faithful organization have the authority to address the sexual abuse issues? Did Mother Theresa have the authority to pull her patients from the street – as far as we know she did not ask their families? Our community benefits from the shared insight of each of us, however those contributions might best be made in such a way to respect the other participants experience as well the limitations of our own knowledge.

Fr. Kavanaugh's position is simply "I'm. right, you're wrong"

The military action in Iraq. according to the Cathechism and Constitution of the United States was authorized by the proper parties: the Congress and the President. In the United Kingdom similar approval occurred.

It is claimed that Poland is the most Catholic country in Europe and it also supported the action very effectively with a group of its Special Forces.

President Clinton said in 1998 that we could not let Hussein acquire weapons of mass destruction. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change our national policy. What did Fr. Kavanaugh think that meant?

The recondite philosophical analysis of just war theory in the Iraqi case ranks close behind the “angels dancing on the pin” issue. Why not ask how many Iraqis need to be raped and have their tongues cut out before some sore-heads can feel better about losing the last election?

Is it really correct to use morality and just war theory to protect evil-doers while they kill and torture thousands of innocents? Is it good sense to search so hard for a rationale to condemn those with the better spirit while injustice runs rampant?

Why not look at other alternatives, such as whether “war” is even the best term to describe the Iraqi action before getting carried away with war theory? Or, how about rationalizing on the basis of the “lesser of evils” theory?

How do you know when an action is right, good or just? How do you know its right? What makes it right? Do we get a feeling of completeness that fulfills a need? Is it our thinking where we sense it intuitively or consciously? Is it just a gut feeling where we know we are right? Is it consistent with the mores around us? Do we test it to see if the action has some universality? What does our conscience tell us? Is it a thought process where we check it out with our rules and principles? There are many descriptive ideas of how we can tell if an action is good. The consequentialist may look at the consequences of an act for determination. Utilitarianism looks for the lesser of two evils as he tries to minimize the bad and maximize the good. You may be deontological where you look to moral absolutes determined from rules and principles. Or you may be teleological, (telos= the goals of an action, where the ends justify the means where ends = do good, avoid evil.)

The just war theory has 5 major principles: 1)The cause must be just. Damn right! Saddam is, was an evil man. Wait, why was Afghanistan after the Russian invasion abandoned to all crazy people like Bin Laden to thrive? Oh, yeah maybe that’s a different subject! That is why the world was outraged by the atrocities and carnage done to human life. Illegal weapons of mass destruction … well that same USA had given Sadam the precursors to make the stuff decades before, at least the British press revealed that fact to a dumbfounded Donald Rumsfeld, the then Sec. of State. Didn’t get that one on CNN, huh? 2) War must declared by proper authority. Damn wrong! It is only God’s grace that makes everything possible. The desire for temporal possessions and power is not wrong or bad, it is natural for man to desire external things as means. What is wrong or bad is the immoderate desire, ‘greed’ or avarice, since it is this avarice that turns these things into ends, into gods. Thus, when a material thing or even a country is made into god, it becomes a devil. Please understand the actor is always good, it’s the performance that is often questionable. 3) All alternatives have to have been exhausted. Damn wrong! That is why the world was outraged at breaking the rules to suite your own national agenda. There was no way those cowboys were going to wait in the Gulf; they wanted to bring their war toys to shore. So much for pacifism, huh? So we’ll rationalize world diplomacy with a battle cry by saying Saddam can’t be trusted, and that these Iraqi people need us to provide their welcomed freedom. Like a decade ago? 4) There must be some chance of success. Damn right! There was no way Iraq was going to withstand the military post-modern laser-driven “freedom” fighters. 5) There must be proportion between benefit and the expected destruction. Damn right! Goes without saying, I still thank God for the quick victory without terrible casualties or massive loss of civilian life.

Will this great TV show of military power and resolve make for a safer world? Deeply saddened by the fact most of our kids, and some adults too saw it as a living room arcade game being played out unaware. The possible seriousness of games and play, and the possibly serious results, are well-known to anthropologists. “War” is really the grimmest of all games.

Besides in his “Yes to Life, No to Death,” our pope said, “No to war....” Doesn’t that mean anything to us Catholics?

Do good, avoid evil has a very, very rich meaning. How much bad can we tolerate and still do good? We should know that there are moral absolutes in our Church’s teaching. We can never torture anyone ever, no matter what the outcome. Why? Because no act we do should be intrinsically evil. The intended outcome should be a good outcome. The unintended although expected outcome may be a bad outcome. The good outcome is not caused by the bad outcome. The end does not justify the means. For instance, we cannot use death to eliminate

I cannot disagree more! The war was not unjust and we are losing the important part -- the post-war now! I'm not going to keep quiet because we are, currently, losing and something must be done. Your article is quite short-sighted. What you call "success" is more likely failure! You sound like the many that are still fighting the "completed" war (i.e. hostilities).

I justified our going to war for, at least, three reasons -- 1) humanitarian, 2) threat to peace & safety, 3) support the UN. I don't intend to argue -- your "plight of ... child(ren) dismembered" versus those currently being dug up or maimed by Saddam. Or, comparing Bush to Hitler. Or, Weigel's arguments in America magazine several months ago. Or, still trying to correct spilt blood over Nagasaki and other American situations over the last 200 years.

I believe that went to war to enforce the UN Res. #1441 (approved 15-0 in Nov.) to protect the integrity of, at least, our American word -- which the UN Security Council could not do for the UN. Major nations provided a great disservice to the UN and the free-world by backing down (once again) from Res. #1441 in January -- this, despite flagrant and continuing violations by Saddam. There is no doubt that is was "put up or shut up" time for "serious consequences" in January.

Yes, the UN could be considered the "proper authority". But, as in other cases (e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Korea), the US had to assert its authority to support the UN resolutions. Therefore, as the mightiest nation (economically, politically, and militarily), America has the authority AND the responsibility to use its resources for the common good. Then, according to pacifists, there is always one more "last resort". Saddam has had many such "one more last chances" over the past 12 years -- taking advantage of such sentiments. Finally, anyone that does not understand that, in today's globalized world, any nation (or group) -- with the history, means and intent of using weapons of mass destruction -- is not a "imminent threat" is living in the past of conventional wars.

Our current American failure is the loss of international support -- mainly via the UN. Yes, we have an imperialistic side of the Bush Administration (Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowicz) against the coalition building side (Powell-McCain-Shelton-Scowcroft & Bush, Sr.) -- with the empire builders winning. This must be fixed somehow! We cannot nation-build Iraq alone -- which is becoming more evident every week. We cannot, and should not, finance and maintain world order. This must be done through coalition building within the framework of the United Nations. America, with its strength shown (again) in the hostile part of the Iraqi war, must use this strength to support a co-operative world order in the UN. For this we must pray!

Although John Kavanaugh's point is that "Winning is not the determinant of good", his assertion of the recent war's immorality seems to beg the questions involved. Three points might well be added to this debate about the morality of war: the first would be that the application of ethical/moral principals derived from the personal realm to the social entity realm seems to be, at best, a stretch. Whether it be Nazi Germany or contemporary US, to assert that all the individual members of those political bodies acted in concert contradicts fact. To the extent that the activities of the people within these bodies do not act in concert, is the degree to which those bodies cannot be considered as entities. To assert that political bodies constitute an moral entity, brought to its logical conclusion would demand that those in decent should exit the political body – frequently neither practical nor desirable. Other intellectual approaches would seem to be recommended. Secondly, unless John Kavanaugh has other sources of information than I, his assertion about the lack of “imminent threat” appears to be beyond his experience. I do not advocate the abdication of responsibility of the individual to assess, as best he/she can, the reality within which he/she exists. But the mark of such assessment is the admission of ignorance where it exists. I certainly was ignorant of the imminent threat that resulted in 9/11 but the threat very definitely was there but for me to have asserted that there was no threat would have been highly inappropriate. Lastly, if one were to apply his criteria of proper authority to the individual sphere, the good Samaritan should have left his fellow traveler in the ditch. There was no indication that the beaten individual would die right away, certainly the Samaritan did not have proper authority from either of the societies involved – they were not supposed to help one another, and the robbers had already left. Proper authority is a very tenuous concept: Does the Voice of the Faithful organization have the authority to address the sexual abuse issues? Did Mother Theresa have the authority to pull her patients from the street – as far as we know she did not ask their families? Our community benefits from the shared insight of each of us, however those contributions might best be made in such a way to respect the other participants experience as well the limitations of our own knowledge.