Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Moral Case FOR the Iraq War

Robert Reilly provides a Just-War-Theory based positive assessment of the war.

Many people will be very surprised at his primary argument:

...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.

Some seemed to think that ignoring this wholesale violation of the cease-fire agreement and the UN resolutions was preferable to the war that was necessary to enforce them. However, they never accounted for the costs of this neglect or suggested an alternative way to end the Gulf War....


IOW, Reilly sees the current conflict as a continuation of the First GW, the one which liberated Kuwait (easily justifiable under JWT.)

HT: The Jester

2 comments:

M.Z. said...

If only the Vatican would have known about this theory... I'm sure it would have changed everything.

capper said...

Sorry, that still doesn't prove the war was/is just.

The US and the UN had the situation under control. There were no WMD's to worry about, much less to account for or to improve.

And why was the US (Cheney, Rummy, Reagan, and the elder Bush) in the 80's OK enough with Hussein to sell him the poison gas that he used on the Kurds, et al, but in 2003, when he had none of these weapons, it was criical to invade?