Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Clouds of Nuance and Ineptitude

Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 29 February 2012

I have been asked about my passing comment the other day that I thought military action in Afghanistan was justified, and probably in Iraq. This was coupled with my observations on the constitutional procedures for going to war -- Congress should declare war. Those who believe all the DC-lawyer-talk need to be asked what circumstances would have to pertain in order for Congress to declare war. Surely that provision of the Constitution means something. What does it mean nowadays? What does it mean in the 21st century? What countries would we have to declare war on before commencing hostilities? And why them, and not Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?

Thus it is that I said we have had military actions that could have been justly pursued, but they weren't because the rule of constitutional law was by-passed.

But then  was asked about the justification for the fighting itself, not the constitutional procedures. My questioner said that he was assuming that I agreed that military action on our part was only justified in cases of self-defense. Close, and almost.
I would say that we should only use our military when our lawful national interest is at stake. Excluded by this would be a spirit of do-goodism, messianism, or multicultural globalism.
In previous posts I have distinguished jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The former has to do with the criteria for entering a just war, and the latter has to do with the criteria for conducting a just war. The latter is the direct concern of military men, the ones fulfilling the mission. The former is the concern of those making the decision to go to war.

Now if a foot soldier knows for a fact that the jus ad bellum criteria being appealed was a lie (as when a soldier is ordered to participate in a false flag attack), then he must resist, refuse to fight. But when he does not know, which is most of the time, he is not responsible to be satisfied on the point before he goes into action. When we think that he needs to have it all laid out to him beforehand, that is our individualism talking, and not our zeal for just war. The need for a criteria for just decision making lies with those who will be making the decisions. If they are being evil, and we have no way of knowing, they will answer to God.
That said, the Taliban in Afghanistan was giving a haven to those responsible for the 911 attacks, and so I believe that it was in the lawful self-interest of the United States to respond militarily. All the nation-building since then is another matter. That is a separate issue, and is not necessarily justified by the lawful national interests of the United States. But the initial action certainly was.

Before getting to Iraq, I need to say something about the rhetorical ineptitude of our leaders. They want us to simultaneously believe that the terrorists can't really lay a glove on us and that we need to be constantly alert, maintaining a war footing. They want to fight a sectarian faith, and they want to maintain a staunch commitment to multi-culturalism as they do. They wanted us to believe the intelligence about all the WMD in Iraq, and then refused to tell us about the WMD they in fact found there. Consequently, when distrust of "the official line" grows, they have no one to blame but themselves. When the bugle blows indistinctly, nobody prepares for battle.

The reason I would be willing to give qualified support to the rationale for fighting in Iraq is because of bits and pieces I have picked up here and there, from various writers and a friend with personal experience there. I don't believe a coherent case was made to the American people for this action, but I believe that it is probable that such a case could have been made. I hold this one loosely, in the palm of my hand. I am one of those individuals who has not had the ultimate security briefing, and so it is certainly possible that I might be all wet.

I said a moment ago that the rank and file do not need to get that ultimate security briefing before they agree to go into a fight. At the same time, men being the kind of creatures they are, enough of the criteria that the decision makers used should be made public in order to inspire confidence. You don't want your armed forces functioning as blind mercenaries. They need to believe in the justice of their cause, at least if they are the kind of men you want protecting you.

One of the reasons Ron Paul has so much traction on this issue is that, whether you agree or disagree with him, his position is clear. If you want to fight a just war in the Middle East, you can't answer him with clouds of nuance and ineptitude. And that, so far, is exactly what we have been trying to do.