Interesting argument from David Warren over at Inside Catholic:
…A month ago, in my daily newspaper column, I briefly reminded readers of the requirements for a just war from the Catholic or Western tradition, from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas through Westphalia. My point then was to make the reader aware that, while few wars meet all the requirements, this, if it is a war, meets none of them — not even one.
Just think of that for a moment. In outline: The enemy is not, in this instance, an aggressor against us or against any of our allies. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime is fairly monstrous, though not by regional standards. In defending it against an anarchic uprising, he is doing no grave, let alone lasting damage to the international order. The obvious alternative (which has worked in the past with him) of presenting a plausible ultimatum with a realistic deadline and specific, foreseeable penalties was not tried. It was not even seriously considered — largely because we didn’t know what we wanted him to do, besides evaporate, and be replaced by angels. There is similarly no chance of victory for our side, since we don’t know what we want to achieve. Nor, thus, can we measure the evils we impose against the good we seek to accomplish. No “post-war” order is conceivable, let alone one that would be an improvement on that which preceded our intervention…
Which is all a pretty devastating critique of the war. I, of course, wanted us to go in – and go in a lot earlier – with the avowed purpose of removing Gaddafi from power. We went in late – very late – and still haven’t a clear notion of what the goal is. We’ve pretty much done this all wrong – no clear goal, use of force not calibrated towards a desired end, no possibility of building a future which would be inherently better than the continuance of the status quo.
In the decision to launch military action there is always this requirement: that it have an end in sight. If one person is killed to no discernible purpose it is worse than if 10,000 die for a good cause. Unless we are using our military to attempt to create a better future, then we are not using it properly. I can’t really understand why Obama went in. I know why I would say, “go”, but I can’t figure out Obama’s desire. To protect civilians? Right now, plenty of civilians are suffering in Libya – from the results of what has now become a long, drawn out civil war. But, also, civilians are suffering as much – or, perhaps, more – in such places as Syria, Iran and North Korea. Nothing wrong with rushing to the aid of the weak…but it does no good to rush there and then refuse to get rid of the source of the trouble. We’re intervening to save the kids from the schoolyard bully, but our action is akin to smacking the bully in the back of the head without making and effort to get him to stop.
The end in Libya is unclear – right now, it does not appear that we are any closer to getting Gaddafi out, if that is our actual goal. NATO is proving ineffective and only the renewed application of American power – and on a much larger scale – promises a swift end to the battle. But we don’t have leadership. No leadership, that is, which can set a goal and then ruthlessly develope the means necessary to achieve it. And so the twilight war will go on – the only thing consistent will be the fact that people will die, every day.
We can retrieve this situation, but only if Obama finally wakes up to his responsibilities as President. His job, the primary reason we have a President, is to ensure that the orders given are animated by conviction and a desire for finality and victory in action. So far, we have seen none of that and while we thank God that none of ours have died, it still does not excuse us from our moral responsibility to bring a swift, just and victorious end to this war.
Blogs For Victory 