Preemption and Just War: Considering the Case of Iraq
Abstract
This article demonstrates that the use of military force by the Bush Administration against the regime of Saddam Hussein does not meet the ethical criteria for "preemptive war" set forth in the classical Just War tradition. It considers ethical questions raised by the U.S.-led attack against Iraq as part of the war against global terrorism and argues that the doctrine of preemptive war as applied in the case of Iraq fails crucial ethical tests. Could Operation Iraqi Freedom and the global war on terrorism be as pivotal in the history of ethical decision making as the emergence of the nation state in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648? Do new ethics for the war on terror sever the 4th-century Augustinian roots of Just War theory and the ties to Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" 700 years later? Could the first major war of the 21st century inaugurate a revolution in ethical decision making about warfare, justifying a new set of criteria for preemption or preventive war? Answers to these questions hinge on whether or not the doctrine of preemption matures into new ethical criteria. Such criteria would build not on foundations for constraining unavoidable human violence, but stretch toward a vision of an ideal of liberty that justifies the selective killing of some to achieve a greater good of liberty for many others. This emerging ethic installs the United States as the guardian of a universal, even transcendent, cause of freedom and the ultimate arbiter in that cause. This article applies the classic categories of Just War tradition to the doctrine of preemption as advanced by the current Administration in the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jan 01, 2005
- Accession Number
- ADA486474
Entities
People
- Franklin E. Wester