August 21, 2005

To the Editor

The Crofton News-Crier

 In a letter of August 4, a contributor  wrote that killing in an unjust war is murder and the perpetrators of such an unjust conflict are war criminals. In June 2005 the World Tribunal on Iraq called for the indictment of President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair on war crime charges.

 Our country invaded Iraq despite massive worldwide protests that an invasion would fail to meet the minimal demands of justice and international law. President George W. Bush resolutely ignored the widespread judgment of religious leaders around the world that an attack on Iraq was morally unacceptable as he has disdained Secretary General Kofi Annan’s determination that the war violates the Charter of the United Nations.

 The only circumstance justifying war is that of self-defense following an armed attack Regime change is not an acceptable pretext for spilling other peoples’ blood.  However, we can be reasonably sure that our political and military chiefs, having taken us to war on the basis of lies and deception, will not be charged with war crimes because that happens only to the defeated.

 But what would happen if we were to lose the war in Iraq?  I recall that on just one night, in March 1945, our B-29s destroyed 100,000 residents of Tokyo, most of them women and children. No doubt the wanton firebombing of Japanese cities was in part retribution for the frightful atrocities of our Far Eastern enemy. But crimes are crimes. General Curtis LeMay, the commander in charge of the Tokyo attack said afterwards: “If we’d lost the war, we’d all be prosecuted as war criminals.” Although agreeing with this judgment, the prestigious Robert McNamara, then a mere Lt. Col. in the Air Force with LeMay, was prompted to add:: “What makes it immoral if you lose, but not immoral if you win?”

 On August 11, guest columnist Gary Baur wondered how the war on Iraq could be unjust when so many high ranking staffers are “good moral men…dedicated to defending the American people.” The illogical presumption here is that earnestness and sincerity are enough to legitimize the cause one defends. Good moral men and women fought under the banner of National Socialism in Germany, brave soldiers were willing to die for the hammer and sickle in the Soviet Union, and devout Crusaders cheerfully slaughtered the unarmed innocent in the Near East.

 Must we remind Mr. Baur that if a cause is objectively unjust, no amount of sincerity is sufficient to purify it of taint? The road to hell is paved with well-meaning but wrong-headed subjectively ethical convictions. A right intention may absolve a soldier of personal guilt for the taking of life in an unjust war, for we are taught to follow the lead of our conscience even when it is erroneous. And, members of our military can simply plead, as did members of the Nazi militia, “We were just following orders” But is obedience the ultimate virtue?

Though the Pentagon refuses to count enemy casualties in Iraq, this enterprise has resulted in the killing of many helpless civilians. One reliable study states that 100,000 non-combatants are victims of our preemptive invasion. Given these statistics, can we take seriously US assurance that every effort is made to minimize the killing of civilians as required by the Geneva Conventions? Since the US refuses to submit to the authority of international tribunals, who is there to compel our government to adhere to the rules of war?

 If we cannot defend a wrongful war, are we still able to root for those in harm’s way out there under a desert sun?  When we are on the road during these war years, is there anything more ubiquitous than the stickers on the cars ahead of us that urge: “Support our troops.”? I wonder what “Support” means to those who attach these decals and magnets to their cars?

 If it means that we pray for the soldiers’ survival so they may enjoy a long life and die in God’s grace, who would object? Can we safely assume that all intend such innocuous aspirations? Or do these invitations to support our military signal agreement with the continuing aggression? Does the sticker on the car ask me to support participation in a war that from the outset lacked a righteous cause and that has been soiled repeatedly by reprehensible assaults on human dignity that flaunt civilized standards? On the other hand, if a decal reads: “Support our troops – bring them home now”, can we conclude that the driver thinks the war isn’t working?

 Now that a majority of Americans is turning against the war, one hears remarks like: “I’m against the war but I support our troops”. Should anyone say. “I hate the leaders of the Mafia, but I support their lowly hit men who need a job?” Or, “I acknowledge that Israeli settlements in the West Bank of Palestine are patently illegal, but I support the settlers’ right to remain there?”

 But ought we not support our troops battling a militant insurgency that is heartless in its disdain for the human life of its own people as well as the occupying forces? While we deplore the violent excesses of these Islamic terrorists, we need to see this viciousness as a response to the prior violence of an unjust invasion, to the hubris of shock and awe, the torture of prisoners, public humiliation, and wholesale destruction of ancient cities like Fallujah. If the insurgency grows like a cancer while the invader remains on Iraqi soil, is it time to support the removal of the cause?

 Though I do not support the war, and I would prefer that our military not aid and abet our leaders in the promotion of this unjust conflict, I wish no harm to those young, and often poor, fighters. In truth, we all support the women and men in uniform and, unfortunately, the unjust war as well every time a lockstep Congress shovels another 80 billion dollars of our taxes into the gaping hole marked “Iraqi War”. Are all taxpayers, then, complicit in the crimes of a war that Pope John Paul II called “a defeat for humanity “?

Nicholas J. Carroll

Crofton, MD