Just about six hours ago, United Nations approved forces from several countries began punitive attacks on Lybia to force it to obey United Nations resolutions. USA forces are simply one of several countries involved in the attacks. The British Armed Forces actually launched many of the Tomahawks and planes that struck Libya. French and British planes are doing much of the actual flying over Libya, with France leading. Yes, the USA is involved and launched Tomahawks, but what a difference from the attack on Iraq!
This time no country voted against the UN resolution and only two countries abstained. This time, the Arab League has been forced to be involved and to formally request and approve the UN resolution. This time the USA did not bluster and threaten the UN that if we did not get our way we would invade anyway. This time the USA insisted that the world had to take a stand and not duck the issue, hoping that the USA would act on its own. This time the USA made it clear to the Arab League that they could not simply stand back and publicly pillory the USA while secretly encouraging us to go ahead and attack. This time the USA insisted that if there were to be a war, there would be a just war.
Father Orthoduck understands that there will be some of you who do not believe that this is a just involvement and others of you who are pacifists and do not believe in war. But, he wants you to catch the dramatic change in attitude present. The USA has used its moral muscle rather than its military muscle and insisted that what is done must be done in a just and lawful manner. We have also insisted that, this time, we must not be the main military force involved, but that it must, for once, truly involve other nations.
Sadly, because of the principled stand that the USA took this time, the President of the USA has been the subject of continued attacks by those whose attitude is still that the USA must act on its own regardless of what any other nation thinks. They would have been happy to have us storm in, regardless of any immorality or injustice involved. They would have had us involved while the United Nations debated whether we were the ones who should be censured or not. They would have cheerfully given another reason for the jihadists to attack us or to pillory us. And, they would have ignored any statement coming from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning such an involvement while proclaiming their pious Catholic Christianity.
Fortunately, our President stood for just, legal, and international rather than autonomous, unjust, and borderline illegal. Oddly enough, this would be the type of stance that Saint Augustine talked about when he wrote what became the beginning of just war theory. For those of you who are Catholic and Orthodox, you may wish to consider just war theory again, and to notice that this is an example of how a just war theology can be carried out in practice.
Now, remember, at this point, the purpose of the involvement is not to overthrow Gaddafi, but to force him to behave, and to protect the citizens of Libya. It is yet to be seen whether this will succeed, or whether further involvement will be necessary. If more involvement is necessary, Father Orthoduck hopes that it will continue to be carried out along the lines of just war theory and with full international involvement.
Father, this time, I have to 1/2 disagree with you.
First, allow me to voice my support for any action taken to secure the freedom of those who need assistance to overthrow the yoke of their burden, including the necessity for military assistance from the USA. That has never been my complaint.
Where, however, was this same morality when it was Saddam Hussein that was killing his own people, threatening the stability of the region, flaunting a cease fire agreement that kept him in power of which the terms could not be verified? Is it moral to go after those you percieve as weaker just because the world agrees with action now? Was everyone afraid that, in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991, that Saddam Hussein would unleash his weapons he wasn’t supposed to have, but could not verify destroying (the violation of the agreement I speak of)?
I think we all must examine this on our conscience before we say we agree with this action but oppose another.
But, let Father Orthoduck point you back to those days. Let him remind you that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a letter just a couple of days before President Bush launched the Iraq offensive warning him that it did not qualify as a true application of just war theory. No such letter has been delivered this time, nor has there been any public statement by the same conference warning President Obama.
Back then more than one nation tried to say to the USA that they were not convinced by the evidence. They asked for more time, because the issue was not Saddam as a dictator, the issue was Saddam as having weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, there were not weapons of mass destruction. The argument that we had to go in to free the people from Saddam was a later argument that was pushed once it became obvious that the original reason for going in was false.
The USA attitude back then was that you either do it our way or we will go in without a full authorization from you. The resulting UN resolution was passed by some very angry nations who only became angrier when they thought that the USA had taken them in with false information. In this case, the USA waited and made sure that other countries were involved in the decision. And, this time the USA made sure that we were simply one of the partners and not the completely-in-charge nation. That is quite a difference.
But, again, let Fr. Orthoduck point you back to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. And let him return the question to you. Where was the morality by the USA at that time to ensure that we followed the Christian tenets of just war theory? The USA back then was unwilling to work with the world community to ensure that a just intervention was reached. As a result, we invaded a country on false grounds. Where was our willingness to listen to bishops, both Orthodox and Catholic, who were publicly saying that the way in which the USA was handling the issue of Iraq was un-Christian and unjust?
The circumstances are not the same, at least not according to the Catholic bishops of this country. So, Father Orthoduck is not talking about his personal opinion, though he has already received one post that tried to make it that. Nor is there a moral equivalence between Iraq and Libya, at least not according to the Catholic bishops.
Fr. Orthoduck,
I tentatively agree with the action imposed by the U.N. and the international coalition against Gaddafi, but I believe that the idea of human rights here is a two-faced issue. Granted, Gaddafi has attacked civilians as they have peacefully called for democratic change throughout the nation and on numerous accounts have begged for international intervention.
But if we move according to this moral impulsion, what does this mean of the humanitarian crises happening in other countries? Say Yemen, or Burma, or even Iran? Why does this moral impulsion apply to Gaddafi and Libya and not these other brutal regimes?
I’m sorry to think that this may be because the political, collateral, and opportunity cost is less with Libya than with these other countries. Yemen has been an ally in our war on terror, Iran is a festering cauldron with many allies in the region, and Burma’s condition would not benefit the U.S. either way, maybe the same with Bahrain.
This is why I tentatively agree with the coalition’s actions against the Libyan regime’s brutal suppression of democratic protesters, but it sets up an uneven expectation on the U.S. and the U.N. which shows the blatancy of the feebleness of our so-called “just war” approaches. In reality, it seems the cost for military intervention against Libya is just at the right price for us to go in…
Robert Cafaro
*if* everyone is speaking the truth, I think this could fit in the “just war” pattern. I can’t trust any politician further than I could kick an meringue, however, and I can’t imagine this has nothing to do with $4 a gallon gas and the fact that Libya has been a thorn in the side of the world since Reagan was in office (the bombing in Scotland comes to mind).
I would agree with you regarding the method this time around, Father Orthoduck; I am glad for the restraint, but I have a few concerns. Like Robert above said, why Libya and not other countries that do essentially the same thing? If our government is broke and we are heavily borrowing from China, does this mean China is financing the attack? And why do the other Arab nations never really come to the aid of their brothers? The Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, etc., could contain Gadhafi if they wanted to.
Father Orthoduck has been rather busy lately, which has kept him from replying on time to this discussion.
Let Father Orthoduck make a couple of points. The argument that we could be somewhere else, and then having a list of places has a serious problem. The result of that argument is one of two possibilities. One could end up concluding that if we cannot become involved everywhere, then we must become involved nowhere, lest we be accused of favoritism. We tried that approach in both World War I and World War II, but ended up being involved anyway.
Or, one could end up trying to really truly become the world’s policeman, in which case we would have to build up the world’s largest active armed forces with huge military expenses and sky-high taxation. It would mean that a large part of our possible labor force would be part of the armed forces and out of the labor pool. More than that, since we would probably be making the choices of where to invade, we could easily be accused of pushing our culture, and the end result would probably be an alliance against us.
The purpose of Saint Augustine’s theology of a just war was to actually delay any one country from entering into a war situation. If you look at his original formulations, there is not actually much warrant for interfering in another country because of the extreme danger of finding reason to interfere in order to conquer another country. Rather, his rules for a just war almost require you to simply watch what is going on, even if that allows another ruler to commit grievious acts.
What changed that approach was World War II. The horrendous sequelae of various countries refusing to become involved is called the Holocaust. This only appeared to be confirmed by the Rwandas, etc. Nevertheless, to this day there is a reticence to become involved with another country until the situation reaches a clear picture of genocide or repugnant suppression, etc. Thus, even though a country may suppress its citizens, provided that the vast majority are able to live out their lives in relative normalcy, the tendency is to not interfere. Thus the Syrias, the Argentinas (during the dictatorship of the generals), and even South Africa etc., were left militarily alone and were only subject to sanctions designed to peaceably convince the dictators to change their ways.
As a result, when there is military interference, it is only a last resort and always comes too late for many people. Sadly, it is the many people for whom it comes too late that were the proof that military intervention was needed.
With President Bush, the conflict in Iraq was opposed on the grounds that the proof that was claimed for WMD’s was insufficient, that this was invasion based on a possible use of WMD’s, not probable use, and that the majority of the populace was actually able to live out fairly reasonable lives. Thus the US Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the proposed Bush change to just war theory. If people will remember, President Bush claimed that modern circumstances required that we change just war theory to allow for invasion of a non-aggreding country. The result was no WMD’s and going on a decade of occupation. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops turned out to be right.
The circumstances are quite different in Libya, there was almost total agreement by the world community, and the bishops have not spoken against it.
Finally, the reality is that the USA, by itself, cannot police the world. Unless we want to become a one-state world, then we need to realize that we need to pick out battles carefully. Picking our battles carefully is not the same as ignoring some and helping others without any reason. It is the recognition that in an imperfect world one can do only what one can do.
Father, that was an incredible response. I tentatively agree with the action, but the moral basis for it is still a bit foggy to me. But, when it comes down to it, you hit the nail on the head:
“It is the recognition that in an imperfect world one can do only what one can do.”
And I think this is the conclusion I’ve come up with over the past week or so. Maybe it’s me still in my idealistic youth that I try to reconcile the way I believe things should be, and the simple, pragmatic way things actually are. Anyways, thank you for your response.