An Urgent Message from Fr. Owen Kearns LC, Publisher
What we deliver with our journalism, we cannot deliver without your generosity.
The National Catholic Register needs your help. Revenue from subscriptions and advertising can't keep up with the rising cost of payroll, printing, postage and other expenses. We must rely on donations to make up the difference. To continue our hard-hitting investigative reporting, we need your financial support. Please donate today.
...or click here to learn about donating to specific projects.
Donations to Circle Media are tax-deductible. (Photo credits/CNS)
Catholics Join Debate Over Bush’s Iraq Plan. We spoke with Sen. Sam Brownback, George Weigel, Mark Shea, Robert Royal, Russell Hittinger and Robbie George.
BY TOM McFEELY
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
February 4-10, 2007 Issue |
Posted 1/30/07 at 9:00 AM
WASHINGTON — In his Jan. 23 State of
the Union address, President Bush said his plan to send 20,000 additional
soldiers to Iraq is “the best chance for success” there.
But others disagree — including Sen.
Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
“I do not believe that sending more
troops to Iraq is the answer,” Brownback, a pro-life Catholic who until
recently was a strong supporter of Bush’s military vision, said Jan. 10 during
a visit to the war zone. “Iraq requires a political rather than a military
solution.”
Meanwhile, the new
Democrat-controlled Congress is openly opposing the president’s plan to ramp up
troops.
Freshman Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.,
delivered the Democratic response to Bush’s address. Webb served as Navy
secretary under President Ronald Reagan and is a highly decorated Vietnam
veteran.
“We need a new direction,” Webb
said, calling for “an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy,
a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a
formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.”
To gain a clearer picture of the
moral and practical issues at play in the debate, the Register interviewed
several prominent Catholic commentators. They were asked whether they supported
Bush’s troop surge, about the arguments for and against a continued military
presence, and whether they hold the same opinion as they had in 2003 about the
decision to intervene in Iraq.
George Weigel
Catholic apologist and papal
biographer George Weigel supported the 2003 decision to intervene in Iraq.
In an e-mail interview, Weigel said
he stands by that judgment.
“I believe that removing the
totalitarian Saddam Hussein regime by the use of proportionate and discriminate
armed force, and trying to create an independent, free Iraq as a model of a new
way of politics in the Arab Islamic world, were morally justifiable, indeed
morally noble, goals,” he said.
“The cause was, and remains, a noble
one,” Weigel said, although he acknowledged that U.S. policymakers have made “a
lot of mistakes” in conducting the war.
Weigel said he thought that Bush’s
new strategy “will move us in the direction of success.
“The moral and political imperative
in Iraq is success: meaning a self-governing and economically viable Iraq at
peace with its neighbors and not harboring international terrorists,” Weigel
said. “If increasing troop levels, coupled with a strategy change that actually
results in stabilizing the security situation in Baghdad and elsewhere, can
move us toward that goal, then that’s the right call from every point of view.”
Said Weigel, “What I know for
sure is that failure in Iraq will be catastrophic, for the U.S., for Iraq, and
for the war against jihadism. People who think that a U.S. withdrawal is the
magic answer to Iraq are just not serious.”
Mark Shea
Unlike Weigel, Catholic writer and
speaker Mark Shea has changed his opinion about the merits of the Iraq war.
Shea said that initially he believed
the warnings that “there was an imminent threat of nuclear attack on the United
States — the famous ‘mushroom cloud’ imagery that Bush and Condi Rice were
pushing.”
But when it later became clear that
Saddam Hussein’s regime did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could
have posed a threat to the United States, Shea re-examined his conclusion that
the U.S. invasion was morally just.
“When I began to go back and look at
just war criteria, it became much more difficult for me to buy that this war
met just war criteria,” he said.
Like the Vatican, Shea thinks that
while the initial decision to enter Iraq was morally unjustified, a hasty U.S.
withdrawal would also be a mistake because it likely would lead to anarchy and
a bloody civil war.
But he believes that a commitment of
only 20,000 additional soldiers will do little to secure a lasting peace. “If
we are going to send more troops, we need to send a lot more troops,” said
Shea.
“I don’t think as things stand that
we can just pull out, but I think that what we’re doing is not going to help
anything because it’s not an adequate application of force,” he said. “And the
administration has given us every reason to suppose that they simply do not
understand the internal politics of Iraq.”
Added Shea, “I don’t know if there
are any good alternatives.”
Russell Hittinger
As the son of a soldier who lost his
life in Vietnam, Russell Hittinger has a special empathy for the suffering that
has resulted from the conflict in Iraq.
“My father fought and died in
Vietnam,” said Hittinger, who is the Warren Professor of Catholic Studies at
the University of Tulsa’s College of Law. “And I’ll tell you that I grieved as
much as I did after he died as when all those Vietnamese people were
abandoned.”
Hittinger said that protecting
Iraqis from a similar abandonment to tyranny and violence is one of the moral
arguments in favor of a continued American military presence.
Another moral argument is trying to
prevent a wider conflagration throughout the region, which would result in even
more suffering.
“These are two that many people have
mentioned,” Hittinger said. “In principle, they sound like good considerations.
How they apply to the actual facts of this case, I don’t know.”
One moral consideration that could
argue in favor of withdrawing troops is the question of whether more social
harm is being caused in Iraq by their presence than would result from their
absence, Hittinger said.
Another is the injuries that the war
may be inflicting on U.S. society.
“Wars can lead to the derangement of
the proper order of the society that fights them,” Hittinger pointed out. “And
by the way, that can happen even when they’re just wars.”
Hittinger said that “like 90% of
Americans,” he has no solid opinion on what the U.S. should do about Iraq.
He said that one difficulty in
assessing the issue is that there hasn’t been much exploration in just war
theory of the question of how and when to withdraw from a military conflict.
“It’s interesting that that should
be so, because nine times out 10, people do have to extract themselves,”
Hittinger said. “Wars don’t usually end very tidily.”
Robert Royal
Faith and Reason Institute President
Robert Royal said that the United States has a moral responsibility to maintain
its military presence in Iraq in order to curb sectarian violence.
“Our withdrawal would lead to an
absolute bloodbath,” he said, adding that “it might even create worse
situations in other countries if people have the sense that the United States
cannot be relied on to follow through when things get tough.”
And while some Catholic critics of
the war argue that it is unwinnable and therefore violates the just war
principle that there must be a reasonable chance of success, Royal said “it
doesn’t seem to me that it is absolutely clear that there is no way to
stabilize the situation.”
Royal backed the invasion of Iraq in
2003. Asked if he still held that same position, he noted that almost every
credible authority believed at the time that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction that might be used against the United States.
“It seemed to me in particular that
the invasion was justified given that just war categories have kind of a new
pressure put on them by this presence of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.
“But it’s a bit difficult to go from
that and say that I still believe that the situation is exactly the same,
because we just know a lot more right now,” Royal said. “So the moral case at
this point has to focus primarily on the situation in which we now find ourselves.”
As for Bush’s planned troop surge,
Royal said that while he’s inclined to support it he’s not sure whether it will
deliver the results the president is seeking.
“I know people, including my
son-in-law who has done several tours in Iraq, and they seem to think it’s a
good idea, but I’m still not sure in my own mind,” Royal said. “I think it’s
still a little premature to say definitively.”
Robert George
Princeton University law professor
Robert George, author of Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality,
said that the question of whether to increase troop levels in Iraq is primarily
a practical judgment, not a moral one.
“There is not a moral principle you
have to apply to get to the right judgment here,” George said. The question is,
‘Is there a good likelihood the additional troops will make it possible to
secure Iraq?’”
Added George, “It’s a practical,
military judgment about whether sending more troops will work. If it won’t
work, then obviously it’s pointless to do it, and worse than pointless, because
you’ll get a lot of people killed in the process. If it will work, if the
underlying justification for the war is sound, then it’s the right decision.”
George said that he supported the
decision to invade Iraq and continues to believe intervention was morally
justified.
Along with the belief at the time
that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them,
the atrocities the Iraqi dictator committed against his own people were ample
justification for taking action, George said.
“Obviously
the war has not been conducted as well as it should have been,” George
acknowledged. “But people would have said the same thing about the Civil War in
the United States. Lincoln changed generals time and time and time again
because he was so dissatisfied in how poorly the war was being run by the Union
militarily.”
Tom McFeely is based in
Victoria, British Columbia.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.