A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Preventive war is “inherently pernicious”

Andrew Bacevich urges Congress to renounce the Bush Doctrine:

The fifth anniversary of President Bush’s West Point speech [where he promulgated the “Bush Doctrine] approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points: First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war. Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack on the United States, any future use of force will require prior Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

Of course, as Dana Carvey, in his GHW Bush persona, used to say, na ga happen. It’s a nice fantasy though, to think that our military policy might be brought into some semblence of conformity with our constitutional principles, not to mention the principles of Just War.

At the very least, it would be interesting to see the question put to any and all of the prospective presidential candidates of both parties whether or not they embrace the principles of the Bush Doctrine and whether they consider preventive war to be a legitimate tool of policy.

If there’s one element of traditional Just War theorizing that’s taken a beating over the last five years, it’s the requirement that war be a last resort. Granted that last resort can be a fuzzy concept; after all, there’s always something else you could conceivably try, however improbable. But the very real danger, one that Bacevich has expounded on at length in his book The New American Militarism, is that war has become a routine tool of policy.

, ,

9 responses to “Preventive war is “inherently pernicious””

  1. Chip Frontz

    The whole debate reminds me of “the NASA culture” that developed before the Challenger and Columbia disasters. The NASA culture had “go fever,” much the same as the administration seemed to have “war fever” after 9/11. The data was interpreted to fit the conclusions that had already been drawn.

    Rather than denounce “preventive war,” the burden of proof for action should be ratcheted up much higher; intelligence should include contrary points of view; and forced regime change should not be seen in general as a workable solution to terrorism. To simply say that the U.S. renounces preventive war is to tie its hands politically to the point of impotence.

    While it remains to be seen for certain, the NASA culture post-Columbia seems to have renounced “go-fever” while still making it possible, after deliberation, to give a “go.”

    Reply
  2. Lee

    Hey Chip, I think the NASA analogy is helpful, though I’d still want there to be at least a strong presumption (if not utterly indefeasible prohibition) against preventive war (which, remember, is distinguishable from preemptive war: the former involves an essentially hypothetical threat while the latter involves an imminent one – the proverbial armies massing at the border, e.g.).

    Reply
  3. Michael Westmoreland-White

    Are you familiar with Just Peacemaking practices? They attempt to flesh out “last resort” and are a common ground between pacifists and JWTers. Preventive war is a violation of both international law and U.S. law and Congress ought to say so.

    I find it encouraging that many top level generals have threatened to resign if Bush attacks Iran without UN approval.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Hi Michael, Not as familiar as I should be. But one of the things I`ve learned from reading JH Yoder is that JW principles need to be embodied in concrete institutional practices if theyre to have any genuine credibility. I`d welcome any suggestions you have for learning more (books, etc.)

    Reply
  5. Michael Westmoreland-White

    Ooh, Lee. Never let yourself open by asking me for bibliographies and the like. 🙂

    My teacher, Glen Stassen, coined the term in his book, Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Peace with Justice. Then he edited a collected work in’98 that became a consensus statement on 10 practices of just peacemaking, Just Peacemaking: 10 Practices to Abolish War (title not his).
    On his website are several articles relating JPT practices to reducing terrorism: http://www.fuller.edu/sot/faculty/stassen/cp_content/homepage/homepage.htm

    Using this strategy, but not this terminology is Peace Action. See also the International Resource Center’s Global Good Neighbor Policy.

    Also, the Hague Appeal for Peace.

    Using Yoderian insights, I have written a couple of blog posts asking whether current U.S. practice makes JWT in our nation impossible.

    Reply
  6. gaius sempronius gracchus

    Lee, you wrote,

    At the very least, it would be interesting to see the question put to any and all of the prospective presidential candidates of both parties whether or not they embrace the principles of the Bush Doctrine and whether they consider preventive war to be a legitimate tool of policy.

    Quite so.

    And it would be interesting if all the candidates would come clean on whether they even accept as binding either or both of the constitutional requirements that the Congress, not the president, make the actual decision for war, and announce it in a formal declaration of war.

    As to the the matter of a declaration, many people would seem to be satisfied with a Congressional decision expressed in a resolution, but others have argued that a genuine declaration is not only what the Constitution actually requires, but also in various ways better.

    As to the first point, the requirement that the decision be made by the Congress rather than the president:

    Hillary has publicly said she thinks the decision really ought to rest with the president, though it is not clear whether she thinks a separate resolution from Congress is required in each case to give the president authority to make that decision. Is another such resolution needed for Iran, say? Would yet another be needed for Syria?

    The other Dems have condemned the Iraq resolution or backed away from their own past votes, at least up to a point. But none of them has done that, I think, in such a way as to indicate rejection of the idea that Congress can pass the power to choose to the president.

    My suspicion is that most of our legislators regard responsibility for war to be too hot a potato. They just don’t want the buck to stop with them. Some may feel they would be out of their depth, facing such a decision.

    Similarly, presidents and people who want to be president always want as much power for the presidency as they can grab, and don’t much care how far that takes them away from the Constitution, or how much further that takes the country from anything much resembling democracy.

    Getting honest answers from these folks would be interesting. They most likely would not be what I, at least, would hope for. And the reaction of pundits and public alike would probably also be interesting and disappointing. Except, maybe, for people who sympathize more with Charles than with the Parliament when they read C. V. Wedgwood.

    Reply
  7. Michael Westmoreland-White

    Gaius is not correct. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) HAS said that only Congress can declare war. He’s the only candidate for pres. who not only is against the war now, but VOTED against in Congress and has voted against EVERY request to fund it. Kucinich has said that he believes Bush has committed impeachable crimes, but that if it’s a choice between ending the war and impeachment, he’d rather have the former. However, he has also said that some members of this administration could still face prosecution after they leave office if he’s elected.

    That’s honesty. I also think Gov. Bill Richardson of NM has been very honest, too.

    Reply
  8. Lee

    MWW – thanks for the reccomendations; I’ll definitely check them out.

    Gaius – Right you are, I think (even allowing for the Kucinich exception). I read somewhere recently that HRC has been very cagey about not making principled statements opposing the kind of executive power grab that’s been characterisitc of the Bush admin. because a) she’s been on the inside – working in the White House which gives her a perspective more sympathetic to the executive and b) she wants to be president! In fact, it’s an argument I’ve tried to make to conservatives who defend the Bush admin: what happens when Hillary’s president?

    Reply
  9. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

    Michael is right about Congressman K, whose candidacy slipped my mind. If he gets the nomination (!) his rectitude on this matter will surely be a point in his favor.

    Your allusion to somethign about Hillary rings a bell for me, too. Don’t recall the exact source.

    Odd how many people – including hypocritical Republicans like GW himself who so often claim to be “strict constructionists” – are perfectly willing to shift the power to decide for or against war from the Congress to the President, and how few are interested in shifting it, or any part of it, to the people themselves.

    Would it be too much to say, broadly speaking, that the peaceniks among us would prefer to see it shifted toward the people, and the war party are quite delighted to see it shifted toward the President?

    I think not.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Gaius Sempronius Gracchus Cancel reply