Jus Post Bellum in Iraq
By Charles P. McGathy, Chaplain U.S. Navy (Retired), Madison, NC
Note: Chaplain McGathy is a D. Min. student at the Houston Graduate School of Theology and he is also the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Madison, NC.
What does winning look like? It is a simple question, yet a profoundly difficult one to answer. Even so it is a question that must be asked and answered by legitimate states before they go to war against other states. Otherwise the moral dilemma that results will be a quagmire that defies escape.
What are the moral responsibilities of victors in war? That is the question posed by former Navy Chief of Chaplains, Rear Admiral Louis V. Iasiello. In his thought provoking article published in the Navy War College Review, he moves the discussion of "Just War Theory" one logical step further and discusses the responsibilities the U.S. has in post-war Afghanistan and Iraq. In prophetic words written in 2004, Admiral Iasiello said: "As recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq attest, nations must fight wars with a war termination vision and plan carefully for the post-conflict phase. Doing so, or failing to do so, may make or break efforts to restore order, heal hostilities, and rebuild societies.[i]
War termination is a fundamental principle taught to military officers at their respective war colleges. Most of these officers have read and studied the writing of Carl von Clausewitz. Regarding the termination of war he wrote the following: "No one starts a war or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so, without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it. . . . Since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the value of the sacrifices made for it in magnitude and duration. Once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced and peace must follow.[ii]
By now it has become overwhelmingly obvious to the American public and to the rest of the world, that there was no clear war termination vision from the Bush administration. As early as September 2003 General Wesley Clark accurately stated regarding the war in Iraq, "We`re in there without a strategy to win, and without a strategy to exit properly."[iii] Furthermore, the preparation for Jus Post Bellum clearly was lacking or based upon grossly inaccurate forecasts. U.S. policy failed to account for ancient religious and cultural divisions given fresh energy in a "liberated" Iraq.[iv] If winning looks like a peaceful and functioning nation where the spirit of reconciliation and cooperation with former enemies defines victory, then it must be reexamined if there has been or ever can be victory in Iraq.
Just for the sake of argument, let`s say we won. An evil dictator has been removed and his cruel reign of terror ended. Had that been the political objective, then the war`s aim would have been met and victory rightfully declared. Things are never that simple though. It now seems that the actual aim of the administration was to establish a western styled democracy in the Middle East that could effectively counter balance the extremist governments of Iran and Syria. Perhaps a cooperative Iraq could insure the flow of oil to the rest of the world? The prewar protest, "It`s all about the oil" make sense to more and more Americans as the post bellum strategy continues relatively unaffected by a lack of progress. The complaint that "The U.S. cannot afford to lose in Iraq" is about more than national pride, it is about economics. [v]
The narrow vision that predicts that utter chaos will erupt if the U.S. proceeds with withdrawal (even if a deadline for withdrawal is announced) is built upon an essentially racist idea. Doubt is cast on the idea that the peoples of Iraq and of the Middle East itself have the capability of political resolution apart from the armed presence of a superpower. The Arab League which has a vested interest in peace has been given little role in helping to quell the civil war between the peoples of Iraq. It makes sense to allow the Arabs a greater opportunity to broker peace. Instead the U.S. is continuing on a course that more and more looks like a permanent occupation of Iraq. At least that is the perspective of many of the occupied.[vi]
Life, by the way, has not gotten better for the average Iraqi. Security is a major difficulty. Electricity and water are less plentiful. There are even gas lines at the pumps in an oil rich nation. Corruption and greed have left post war Iraq in shambles.[vii] Our service men and women are doing an outstanding job, but they are too few and their war-fighting skills are not up to the task of reconstructing an "Islamic democracy" (whatever that may be).
Is there any wonder the American people are so frustrated and upset by all of this? Is this what they thought winning would look like? Polls indicate that the justification for this war was based upon a manufactured spin. Most Americans would not have supported a war based upon economic advantage. Just war theory proposes, in part, that we do not fight wars to gain financially. Just war is about self-defense against an aggressor state. When all else fails war may be chosen as the "lesser of two evils." War is not excused so that a nation can establish another, more friendly government or because it offers economic advantages.[viii]
It should not be assumed that war, just or otherwise, can establish good governments or offer economic advantage. At best the outcome is a roll of the dice. War is a hammer. It is a clumsy and brutal tool not designed to accomplish the delicate lacework of building a nation or producing good will; only diplomacy and acting with justice can accomplish those ideals. Soldiers are not police, or diplomats, or civic engineers. In the end they are the blunt instruments of force best suited for the destruction of an enemy`s ability to resist political pressure.
As the lines become increasingly blurred and the answer to the question of what winning looks like grows murky, it is the soldiers who are being asked to do things they are poorly equipped to do. The fact that they do such a fine job is not a testimony to the wisdom of the political leadership, but the remarkable versatility of the American fighting man and woman. In order to correct our course and establish order, the Iraqi people themselves must participate. The prolonged presence of occupation troops may actually prevent the establishment of national efforts to self-govern.[ix]
That of course raises ethical issues. Has the Jus Post Bellum strategy of the U.S. actually enabled Iraq to dysfunction as a self-governing nation? Has the refusal to set a withdrawal time line been an unwise, even an unjust post-war decision? Even worse, has it revealed an ulterior motive on the part of the invader nation? Perhaps it really is about keeping oil flowing? Maybe deposing an evil dictator and destroying weapons of mass destruction were justifications for war spun by politicos to gain popular support when the real motivation was based upon economic factors? Those concerns never would have persuaded the nation to go to war.
Sadly, it is the young men and women of the armed forces who are caught in the middle. While they continue to insist that "they can win this thing," the occupied Iraqis, angry at the chaos they call home, plant explosives and strike out at the infidels who have invaded their nation. These "infidels" most likely have never had a college class in political science. It`s a no win for them. Our political leadership failed them when they failed to consider the question, what does winning look like?
So for whom has the war been a win? Who might have a very clear idea of what winning looks like? Well in the words of "Deep Throat" from the Watergate era, "Follow the money." James Paul, writing for the Global Policy Forum comments, "After the Iraq War of 2003, the United States and United Kingdom oil giants are certain to gain privileged access to Iraq`s oil resources. Excluded from control over Iraqi oil since the nationalization of 1972, Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron will now gain the lion`s share of the world`s most profitable oil fields. Few outside the industry understand the huge stakes in Iraq, which amount to tens of billions in potential profits per year."[x]
In the end, is that what winning looks like? If so can the war be ethically justified?
If however, as Chaplain Iasiello suggests, winning is the reestablishment of justice then our strategy must make a decided shift. Justice ought to be the goal. Iasiello says, "It would be constructive if both the victors and the defeated entered this post-conflict phase in a spirit of regret, conciliation, humility, and possibly contrition. Such a mind-set may further the healing of a nation`s trauma and thus enhance efforts to seal a just peace."[xi] If that is what winning looks like we can still get there. It means a change of heart and a change of direction.
[i] Louis V. Iasiello, "Jus Post Bellum: The Moral Responsibilities of Victors in War," Naval War College Review, Summer/Autumn 2004, Vol. 57, No. 3/4.
[ii] Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1976), 87.
[iii] "Clark: Americans `Embarrassed` by Bush," CNN, 29 September 2003.
[iv] The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy of the General Assembly Council Presbyterian Church (USA), Iraq: Our Responsibility and the Future (Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly, 2004), 10.
[v] Zvi Bar`el, "An Occupation with Democracy," Haaretz.com, available from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=300617; Internet; accessed 11 June 2007.
[vi] Michael Rubin, "That Occupation Feeling," National Review Online, 18 April 2005.
[vii] William Fisher, "Iraq Left to Rebuild Itself," Inter Press Service, 29 March 2006.
[viii] Brian Orend, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[ix] Hamdan Yousuf, "Does the Iraq War Promote Iraqi Self-Determination?", An Address to the Heritage Foundation, 5 December 2005.
[x] James A. Paul, "The Iraq Oil Bonanza: Estimating Future Profits," Global Policy Forum, 28 January 2004.
[xi] Iasiello, ibid.
