Was The Iraq War a Just War?

InsideCatholic.com is hosting a debate on whether or not GW Bush’s war with Iraq qualifies as a just war.

Robert R. Reilly starts with the pro-war position:  The Iraq War Was Just.  He opens the debate by saying what one would expect by those who supported the war: Saddam was evil, and the US had the lawful authority to wage war:

Certainly, the United States had the lawful authority to wage this war, as it was the primary signatory to the agreement to end the First Gulf War in 1991. As a signatory, it had a responsibility to see to the enforcement of that agreement. Saddam Hussein was in violation of its major provisions, as well as those of the subsequent 15 mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions for which the United States voted. Among these violations were: Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people; his refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners; his refusal to return stolen property; his support for international terrorism; his efforts to circumvent economic sanctions; his refusal to account for weapons of mass destruction and to cease his development of WMD.

I wonder how he would feel if Iran justified war with the US because of the millions of people the US has killed through abortion, the refusal of the US to follow the Geneva Conventions for those enemy soldiers (or civilians) that the US captures in the heart of combat, the refusal of the US to give up land it seized in various wars throughout history, including stolen Native American property, the US support for international terrorism, and the US refusal to account for their own weapons of mass destruction and to cease their development of greater, worse kinds of WMDs? Probably he would see how shallow the argument would be if it came from Iran: and so, many think, was it shallow when the US used these justifications for  a pre-emptive war with its own weapons of “shock and awe.” Even Hitler justified his war by similar rhetoric.

Robert Shaw then offers his position: The Iraq War Was Unjust. While he believes that a pre-emptive, preventative war could be justified, he did not think Bush made the proper case for one in this instance:

I say this as someone who, contrary to the position of just war traditionalism, accepts the moral legitimacy of preventive war in some circumstances. Morality doesn’t require waiting until the mushroom clouds rise over New York and Los Angeles. But the legitimacy of preventive war demands the existence of a real, present threat requiring the use of force to defuse it. Here, as we now know, the American government failed egregiously. Thousands of unnecessary, unjustified deaths are the result.

While Shaw provides some interesting points, I wonder if he truly is the best person they could have brought into the debate. Should they not have at least found someone who, like Pope Benedict XVI, believes there is nothing in just war teaching which allows for pre-emptive strikes? It is already feeling as if the debate is already stacked, and the person chosen to defend traditional just war teaching is already one who himself disagrees with it. Alas.  Moreover, his answer to the question of authority is more than a little weak: he fails to make the proper distinction that the leader of state certainly is the one who determines when to wage war, but that does not mean whenever such a leader wages war that it has become just (otherwise all wars would be just). Shaw’s response that the UN should be seen as the final authority does not help satisfy those who fear the UN could itself accept an unjust war.

Both sides have already engaged each other offering their first rebuttals, with Reilly questioning Shaw’s adherence to the UN, and Shaw trying to go into what he believed the war was about: saving face and the need to protect the US from some possible attack by Saddam in the future. While he is right in saying the first does not justify war, he could have made a stronger case about the errors of the second by showing how such thinking could be used by any warmonger to invade the land of any enemy they feel they can currently take on. 

From what has gone on so far, though I disagree with him, I think Reilly is winning the debate, mostly because he is not second-guessing his position as much as Shaw, and because Shaw just does not seem to spell out well the points he is trying to make.