War and the Onus Probandi

One of the reasons I am always reluctant to support a given decision to go to war is because I believe the burden of proof must always lie on the party advocating war. And since war involves the killing and maiming of hundreds or thousands of people, it only seems just that the bar of evidence ought to be particularly high. One might steal from Benjamin Disraeli and say that if it is not necessary to go to war, it is necessary not to go to war.

In the case of Afghanistan it was clear that the Taliban was harboring and giving succor to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. So it seemed eminently justifiable to attack the terrorist camps and overthrow the regime.

In the case of Iraq, however, matters were much murkier. The evidence offered for Saddam’s possession of WMD and connections with al-Qaida seemed inconclusive. To justify a pre-emptive strike one would, I think, need a greater degree of certainty than was on offer. Certainly I think it’s fair to say that there was reasonable doubt.

Add to this the fact that governments lie. Not just occasionally, but systematically, and especially during wartime. They lie, they spin, they manipulate, they distort. I’m not saying that I know for a fact that anyone in particular lied; as I said before, I don’t have the information to say that for certain. But I do think that history should teach us to be skeptical of the claims of government officials to say the least. Given my limited access to reliable information on these matters, I remain, happily or not, unable to give my assent to most acts of war.