Thinking Man's Rant: Law, Morality and Warfare.

This has been one hell of a busy week, and I have not posted at all. I intend to write about all that has happened in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I wanted to post something I started to write more than a month ago, and just never got around to. This for all of the whining Marys out there who think that the only time we should ever take up arms is if our nation is attacked, someone is slaughtering cute fuzzy bunnies, or bad people are committing horrible atrocities....the same folks also seem to believe that we should only get involved in saving cute fuzzy bunnies if we are guaranteed there will be no casualties.

Poop on you if you think that, by the way

Read on:

There are three generally recognized types of international political systems that have operated in the world in the period of recorded history. These systems are the world empire, feudal, and state systems. In the empire system, a single political entity exercises hegemony over large expanses of territory and people from a central location. The feudal system was a political structure dependant entirely on the concept of obligation between lords and vassals. Lords owned the lands upon which vassals lived and worked, and vassals owed their lords military obligation during times of war. The fiefdoms ruled by lords in turn owed obligations to the king. The third type of political system is the state system, in which the dominant form of political organization is the nation state. Unlike the other two systems, the state model does not provide for any oversight on the activities of sovereign realms and, instead relies on diplomacy to resolve disputes between states. This system of international organization is a relatively recent construct, dating from the mid 17th century and the end of the Thirty Years War.

The Thirty Years War was a conflict fought in the Central European territory (primarily in modern day Germany) of the Holy Roman Empire between 1618 and 1648. The war was ostensibly fought over the glaring differences between Protestants and Catholics, but also involved the self preservation of the Hapsburg Empire.The Peace of Westphalia, which finally ended the war, was signed concurrently in Munster and Osnabruck on January 30, 1648 due to the fact that the Protestant and Catholic leaders refused to meet each other. The primary significance of this treaty is that it ushered in the modern concept of a state dominated system in which diplomacy would be used to resolve issues, and it officially codified the notion of the nation state as we know it today. This ensured that future wars would be fought, not over issues of religion, but instead over issues of state.

The international political system under which the nations of the world currently operate is significantly different from the system common in Europe before the Thirty Years War. Prior to this conflict, if a ruler wanted to announce his intentions to other kings, he would send an envoy or herald to declare his intentions, and contracted generals who would fight his wars using vassal soldiers who owed service to their lord. Since the Treaty of Westphalia, an international system has developed which emphasizes the use of diplomacy conducted by professional statesmen, and war conducted by professional soldiers who are loyal to the state, and whose pay and benefits are provided as a result of taxes and levies raised by the state. This system has ensured relative stability within the borders of established states due to the existance of codified sets of laws, along with the means and will to enforce them. However there is no system or entity in the world capable of controlling the behavior of states, and this presents a problem.

The problem is this: the state dominant international political system is anarchic in the sense that there is no overarching system of control counterbalancing the actions of individual states. For the most part nations are left to do as they see fit with little or no threat of oversight, or punishment for transgressions of international law. Conversely, national political systems are not anarchic because the governments of the various nations provide for something that does not exist on the international level, which is enforcement of the nation's laws. The international equivalent of law enforcement is mostly a kind of "gentlemans agreement" formally entered into by two or more states; this kind of an agreemnet is known as an international treaty.

An international treaty is an agreement entered into, signed, and officially recognized by nations who consent to abide by the terms, and at the same time recognize that there are penalties for breaking the accord. An international convention is an unwritten accord that multiple nations buy into, and abide by, voluntarily. If any nation goes against the international norm there is no enforcement, and hence no punishment. UNLESS, of course, a nation or combination of nations takes it upon themselves to bring the offending state to heel through a number of different means, the most extreme of which is war.

Can anybody reading this think of a nation or nations that might have, in some way, gone against the international norm, thus provoking a military reaction against them? If you know the answer, just raise your hand, and I'll get back to you momentarily.

Anyway, continuing on: Customary international law can be loosely defined as being nation states doing things as they have always been done, following these basic guidelines:

• Widespread repetition by states of similar international acts over time (state practice)

• Acts must occur out of a sense of obligation.

• Acts must be taken by a significant number of states and not be rejected by a significant number of states.

Positive international law, on the other hand, is a type of law in which rules of conduct are codified, and transgressions of which can entail punishment. Punsihment for such infractions can come in many forms such as censure, embargo, or complete isolation from the international community.

Quick question#1: who can name the states that the aforementioned punishments might recently have applied to?

(Hint: if you answer United States of America you are a dumbass.)

Repeated violations of positive international law can lead to W-A-R.

Quick question #2: who can name a state (there are a couple of possible candidates) that repeatedly and/or egregiously violated positive international law to such an extent that it/they
most certainly opened themselves up a family sized can of whoopass, and ended up getting the shit kicked out of them?

(Hint: if you answer United States of America, go out and play in the traffic right now. If you answer "The Empire", please leave your name and address, and after I get done with this deployment I will come to your house and beat you silly with your own "Code Pink" protest sign, then mock your sad lack of secondary sexual development in front of teenagers.

Okay, where was I?

Ah, yes; historical legal precedents for waging war between states. No matter what anybody may think, developed states do not, as a general rule, go to war on a whim. Certainly you have the occasional Napolean, or Hitler, or, dare I say, Saddam. For the most part, however, nation states are very conservative of their populace and wealth, and are not at all willing to squander either in combat lightly. For a state to be willing to do so, a lot of thought and debate first takes place before the final decision is made, and much of the thinking and discussion centers on the writings of political philosophers as well as precedent.

In his most famous work, Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that there were three conditions that must be fulfilled before any war could be considered "just":

• "First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged."

• "Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault."

• "Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil."

Aquinas drew heavily upon the bible, and the writings of St. Augustine as the inspiration for his writings, as well as traditions of ethics and morality in war which predated Christian theology.

At any rate, so far as the present conflict is concerned, the United States and our coalition partners have fulfilled the three criteria mentioned above in the following ways:

1. George W. Bush was fairly elected as president of the United States twice; therefore his authority as commander in chief is valid.
2. The just cause is manifestly obvious to those who are not fixated on the whole "No Blood for Oil" mantra. We went to war to defend our national sovreignty and populace, and to enforce positive international law.
   
3. We did not go to war to "Liberate" anyone, anymore than we did in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc.... It is and always has been about national self interest. Regardless of that, we brought liberation, freedom and democracy with us, and that really is a good thing. No kidding, I really mean that.

Aside from the writings of Aquinas, the writings of Hugo Grotious are probably the most heavily relied on principles when modern states are contemplating whether or not to go to war. Grotious wrote of seven basic principles of a just war in On the Law of War and Peace. These principles are as follows:

• That there is a just cause.

• That there is a right authority/legitimate sovereign to initiate the war.

• A right intention on the part of those using force.

• The resort to force should be proportional.

• The use of force should be a last resort.

• That war is undertaken with peace as its ultimate goal. War should never be fought for its own sake.

• There should be a reasonable hope of success before war is initiated.

In his writings Grotious did not strictly rely upon religious teachings in determining his seven principles. Rather, he relied on the concept of "Natural Law", which argues that there are morals and ethics that apply to all universally, and are therefore on a higher plane altogether than the "Positive Law" of discrete political entities.

So, does the current set of conflicts comply with Grotius's principles? Let's see, shall we?

1. Kosovo: war waged to prevent the emergence of a general war in southern Europe. CAUSE: Just.
2. Afghanistan: The U.S. is attacked by non-state actors being harbored by a thuggish regeime in kabul, more than 3,000 are killed, and the U.S. gets really pissed off, tells the rest of the world to stay the hell out of our way, and goes to kick some ass. CAUSE: Just.
3. Iraq: U.S. and allies fight war in 1991 to expel Iraq from Kuwait after a serious violation of positive international law, then the U.S. spends the next twelve years in a defacto state of war with Iraq, during which time Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire more times than I have fingers and toes to count, as well as violating U.N. resolutions so many times that if I cut off one of my fingers and/or toes each time this happend, I would only have three little piddys remaining. That would make counting very, very difficult for me, as I rely almost entirely on my wittle piddys for my considerable math skills. CAUSE: Just.
   

Oh, almost forgot: does anybody really believe that after 9/11 we were going to allow Saddam to remain in power, especially considering the fact that this lunatic was a well known sponsor of terrorists? Anybody?

So, let's continue shall we? Moving on from Grotius' first point, let us finish up with 2-7:

• There was a "right authority" to initiate the conflict in a duly elected head of state: dubya.
• There was a right intention in that our goal was to remove a proven threat to our national sovreignty and the safety of our citizens. In otherwords, we did not start this conflict for the purposes of increasing our wealth or national territory.
• The resort to force was, and has been, VERY PROPORTIONAL! Has anybody yet witnessed carpet bombing, germ warfare, or a mushroom cloud over every Iraqi or Afghan city in retaliation against roadside bombs? Nope.
• The use of force in Afgahnistan was the ONLY resort, and in Iraq it was the LAST resort. I swear if I hear one more person say something like 'We just needed to give the sanctions a chance to work.", I'm going to have an anuerism. The sanctions did not work, and we were at war with Iraq for 12 years; how much longer was this supposed to go on?
• We are not fighting war for the sake of fighting war; peace, and security is our goal for us, and peace, stability, security and freedom is our goal for Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan...and everywhere else we are conducting operations.
• There was more than a reasonable hope for success at the outset of the current conflict (the somewhat inappropriately "Global war on Terror"), and we are still being successful in all three, curent journalistic slants to the contrary.
  

To anybody who disagrees with my analysis, I can only say 'don't argue with me because I'm right on this'. So go back to listening to "Air America", then put on your Birkenstocks and go down to Starbucks where you can sulk over a halfcaf, half soy caramel latte while you think evil thoughts about me and the empire I so foolishly serve. After that you can go straight to hell.

To the rest of you sane, right thinking people out there: talk amongst yourselves.