Consensus

On Friday we had a Veteran's Day assembly in which we got to hear the stories of several soldiers in the US Army. For the most part they seemed nice enough people and their stories were somewhat interesting. But one thing bothered me through the entire ordeal. One little lie told to us before we heard any of those stories: "They fought to protect our freedom."

No they didn't.

Let's stop lying to ourselves. The last time the American military fought a war of self-defense in any respect was World War II, and even in that case claiming it was "to protect our freedom" is a bit dramatic. In reality, every war since then - and in fact many wars before that - have been fought for our own greed, our own foreign policy interest, or on the grounds of promoting democracy and freedom abroad. These are the types of wars we fight today, and these are the wars we ought to question ourselves about. Whether a war to truly defend America's very life should ever occur in the foreseeable future is questionable enough, but surely no doubt should exist in our minds that war is justified in this extreme circumstance. No, the real debates lie in the three causes I listed above, and that's what we shall discuss.

As it happens, it should be fairly obvious that fighting wars for greed and our own self-interest is fairly unjustifiable. The problem comes up when we try to separate these from the idea of "fighting the good fight," fighting for freedom abroad. Some will claim the Iraq War was nothing more than a bloody attempt to secure our own oil interests. Others would claim it was a legitimate war waged to free an oppressed people from a brutal dictator. Some will claim Vietnam and Afghanistan were wars fought blindly to make the world an easier place for America to control. Others will say they were honest attempts to protect the citizens of those nations from violent extremists. How do we distinguish these motivators and justifications?

I wish there was an easy answer to give. Unfortunately, any process or criterion for choosing a just war is doomed to be subjective to the utmost. But there are better and worse ways to act on subjectivity. They pivot on this word: "consensus."

Let's revisit those wars I just mentioned above. What do all three have in common? Two things:

1. None was begun at the begging of Congress, or even with their immediate approval (see: FDR going straight to Congress for a declaration of war before formally engaging the Japanese). Rather, each war initiated with military action by a president who then thought it appropriate to ask for Congress' permission after the fact.
2. None was backed by an international consensus. Vietnam was by and large an American war with NATO backup, and with NATO at that time directly under the boot heel of the United States government that hardly comes as a surprise. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were deemed by the United Nations or any other significant international body as rogue states or international threats. In the case of Iraq, President Bush blatantly refused to wait for the ruling of UN weapons inspectors to determine whether Saddam Hussein had the WMDs he was using as a justification for war.

A just war is one initiated by those affected by it. Should America be attacked directly by a state, there would be no doubt that retaliation was justified. In that situation, America has the right to initiate a war in which it and it alone is primarily involved. 

In like respect, a war waged for "democracy and freedom abroad," an international war, affects not just America but the international community. Thus the international community has the impetus to decide whether war is called for or not. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are transparently unjustified because they are international wars without international consent or consensus. When we wage war claiming it is for the sake of the world, without the world agreeing that is what is in their best interest, we expose the fact that we wage that war not for the world but for ourselves, for our own selfish interest. Had Bush, for instance, waited for a ruling by UN inspectors confirming Hussein had WMDs and acknowledging the necessity of war, the Iraq War might have been justified. But he did not, and it was not.

An example of a justified war, then, is due for posterity and completeness. The short war waged in Libya in support of anti-Qaddafi rebels is a great example. The war was not a US war, it was a NATO war, met with NATO and other international approval, rather than instigated by the United States only. The war was also brief and to the point - no attempt was made to extend great US hegemony in the region for the purpose of "nation-building." Finally, the citizens of Libya themselves largely considered the aid welcome, rather than feel that they were simply toys in a game bigger than themselves, as in Vietnam and other unjust wars. Libya, though not handled perfectly, particularly in the aftermath, is a shining example of a war rightly fought.

I was lied to on Friday. None of those soldiers fought for my freedom. But they may well believe that they fought justly just the same. And if so, let them say as much. For it is just as great a sacrifice, if not more, to have fought justly for another's freedom, than to have fought justly for mine.