Rite and Reason: A rush to war with Iraq would be both morally reprehensible and foolhardy, writes Kevin O'Higgins
This article was prompted by Seamus Murphy's contention that "Military action against Saddam would be morally just" (Rite and Reason, Monday, February 24th). Seamus Murphy is both a colleague and a personal friend. However, as Aristotle pointed out, friendship cannot be allowed to stand in the way of truth.
I cannot agree with the way he employs "just war" theory in order to argue that the only correct response to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is an immediate resort to war.
His article appears to confuse "the threat Iraq poses to its neighbours" with that posed by Saddam Hussein, who "will attack if opportunity presents".
It is extremely important to clarify whether the basic problem is Iraq or Saddam. Wars are not declared on or waged against individuals, but entire nations. The case that needs to be made is not for a war against Saddam, but against Iraq. The question of whether it would be justifiable to remove Saddam by employing means other than war is a separate issue.
Whatever Saddam's own delusions may be, he is not Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein is probably the Iraqi least likely to suffer the physical consequences of either aerial bombing or a ground assault on his country. He will be well protected by bomb-proof bunkers and the like. It is probable that he has contingency plans for eventual exile should the need arise.
The Iraqi people, regardless of whether they support Saddam, will be the first casualties of any war, just as in 1991 and during the past 12 years.
Many people, myself included, would agree that Saddam must be contained or defeated and, preferably, removed from power. However, not everyone who shares these intentions would agree that an immediate war is the best, the most just, or the most effective means of achieving the objectives.
The UN arms inspectors have asked for sufficient time to pursue the task assigned to them by the Security Council. Barring a sudden and dramatic change of circumstances, that request seems reasonable. Their request for more time has been echoed by a clear majority of members of the "international community".
Even within the US, public opinion is sharply divided, despite the fact that Mr Bush has had several months to present persuasive evidence. The world was promised such evidence, but it failed to materialise.
The case for an immediate resort to war has not been made. This does not mean that such a case may never be made, or that all those presently urging restraint will oppose war indefinitely and in all circumstances. The request for more time is based on the conviction, or perhaps merely the fragile hope, that the inspection process, coupled with other forms of pressure, may yet yield positive results.
Even a very tentative alternative to war should be given a reasonable chance. Not even George Bush has suggested that Saddam is likely to unleash weapons of mass destruction within the next few weeks or months.
Seamus Murphy's general arguments regarding the occasional necessity of war as the only effective means of avoiding greater evils are unobjectionable. The problems arise when he proceeds to apply these general principles to the particular case of Saddam Hussein.
I agree that it is necessary to measure the extent of the threat posed by Saddam's continuance in power, and that the UN must be willing to respond effectively.
However, that threat must then be situated within the broader context of regional and global considerations in order to select the best strategy. The present problem is not as simple as removing a single evil dictator. A rush to war may destabilise the region and, if it proceeds in defiance of the Security Council, may constitute a serious blow to the authority of the UN
These possible consequences must be part of the reckoning. Mr Bush and Mr Blair have said they are willing to proceed, with or without UN backing. This attitude may prove to be as big a threat to world peace as anything Saddam Hussein is capable of perpetrating.
If the UN arms inspectors eventually conclude that their task is hopeless, and there remains a reasonable suspicion that Saddam is either concealing weapons of mass destruction or in the process of producing them, the international community may well be forced to conclude that war is the only remaining option.
However, we should reach that conclusion with extreme reluctance and only when we are reasonably certain that we have truly arrived at that endgame point in the process. In present circumstances, a rush to war would be both morally reprehensible and foolhardy.
Kevin O'Higgins, a Jesuit, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Milltown Institute in Dublin