[Peace-discuss] Obama's unjust war

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Why Obama Flunks the "Just War" Test
	By DANIEL C. MAGUIRE

Whether Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is not the point. He didn’t. The 
fact is, he got it, and was gifted with the chance of a lifetime to make a 
classic speech on the politics of peace-making, a speech that in the glare of 
Nobel could have attained instant standing.

He failed miserably, producing a hodge-podge that resembled the work of a bright 
but undisciplined sophomore.

He was hoist on the  petard of  classical "just war theory," a theory that, 
properly understood, condemns his decision to send yet more kill-power into 
Afghanistan.

This theory which is much misused and little understood is designed to build a 
wall of assumptions against state-sponsored violence, i.e. war. It puts the 
burden of proof on the warrior where it belongs.

It gives six conditions necessary to justify a war. Fail one, and the war is 
immoral. The six are as follows:


(1) *A just cause.* The only just cause is defense against an attack, not a 
preemptive attack on those who might someday attack us. Obama flunked this one, 
saying our current military actions are "to defend ourselves and all nations 
from further [i.e. future] attacks." President Bush speaks here through the 
mouth of President Obama.


(2) *Declaration by competent authority.* Article one Section 8 of the 
Constitution which gives this power to the Congress has not been used since 
1941. Congressional resolutions instead yield the power to the President. Obama: 
"I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle 
in a distant land." Sorry. Not according to the Constitution.

On top of that we are bound by treaty to the United Nations Charter. Article 2, 
Section 4 prohibits recourse to military force except in circumstances of 
self-defense which was restricted to responses to a prior "armed attack" 
(Article 51), and only then until the Security Council had the chance to review 
the claim.

Obama fails twice on proper declaration of war. He violates the UN Charter by 
claiming the right to act "unilaterally" and "individually." Again, faithful 
echoes of President Bush.


(3) *Right intention.* This means that there is reasonable surety that the war 
will succeed in serving justice and making a way to real peace.
Right intention is befouled by excessive secrecy, by putting the burdens of the 
war on the poor or future generations, by denying the right to conscientious 
object to soldiers who happen to know most of what is going on, and by a failure 
to understand the enemy’s grievances.

Obama declares gratuitously: "Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to 
lay down their arms." So all we can do is send soldiers to kill them? Really? 
What negotiations have been tried to find out why they hate us and not Sweden, 
or Argentina, or China?

A pause for reflection might show that those and other countries are not bombing 
and killing civilians in three Muslim countries simultaneously. That could 
generate a little resentment. None of those countries not targeted by al Qaeda 
are financing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in violation of 
UN resolutions.

The processes of negotiation allow light to shine in dark corners. Realpolitik 
eschews the light.


(4) *The principle of discrimination, or non-combatant immunity.* The science of 
war has made this condition so unachievable that only the policing paradigm 
envisioned by the UN Charter could ever justify state-sponsored violence.

Police operate within the constraints of law, as a communitarian effort, with 
oversight and follow-up review to prevent undue violence. Obama’s allusion to 
“42 other countries” joining in our violent work in Afghanistan and Iraq mocks 
the true intent of the collective action envisioned by the UN under supervision 
of the Security Council.

It is a mere disguise for our vigilante adventurism.


(5) *Last resort.* If state-sponsored violence is not the last resort we stand 
morally with hoodlums who would solve problems by murder. Obama fails to see 
that modern warfare, including counterinsurgency, is not the last or best resort 
against an enemy that has four unmatchable advantages: invisibility, 
versatility, patience, and the ability to find safe haven anywhere.

The idea of a single geographic safe haven is a myth and an anachronism 
reflecting the age of whole armies mobilizing in a definable locus.
Obama’s speech showed no appreciation of the alternative of peace-making.

A Department of Peace (which would be a better name for a revitalized and 
better-funded State Department) would have as its goal to address in concert 
with other nations tensions as they begin to build.

Neglected crises can explode eventually into violence. This is used to assert 
the inevitability of war when it is only an indictment of improvident statecraft.


(6) *The principle of proportionality.* Put simply, the violence of war must do 
more good than harm. In judging war the impact on other nations and the 
environment must also be assessed in the balance sheet of good and bad results.

This is a hard test for modern warriors to pass. Victory in war is an oxymoron. 
No one wins a war: one side may lose less and may spin that as victory. Obama’s 
faith in the benefits of warring in three Muslim countries is delusional.

President Obama in Oslo was more a theologian than a statesman. He gave a 
condescending nod to nonviolent power but his theology of original sin tilted 
him toward violence as the surest and final arbiter for a fallen humanity.

It is “a pity beyond all telling” that the “just war theory” he invoked condemns 
the warring policies he anomalously defended as he accepted the Nobel Prize for 
Peace.


[Daniel C. Maguire, a professor of moral theological ethics at Marquette 
University, is the author of The Horrors We Bless: Rethinking the Just-War Legacy.]

  http://www.counterpunch.org/maguire12162009.html