Anti-Climacus

QUOTE: Michael Walzer in Dissent:

" But now that we are fighting it, I hope that we win it and that the Iraqi regime collapses quickly. I will not march to stop the war while Saddam is still standing, for that would strengthen his tyranny at home and make him, once again, a threat to all his neighbors. My argument with the anti-war demonstrators hangs on the relative justice of two possible endings: an American victory or anything short of that, which Saddam could call a victory for himself. But, some of the demonstrators will ask, wouldn't the first of these vindicate the disastrous diplomacy of the Bush administration that led up to the war? Yes, it might do that, but on the other hand, the second ending would vindicate the equally disastrous diplomacy of the French, who rejected every opportunity to provide an alternative to war. And, again, it would strengthen Saddam's hand.

But even people who were against starting the war can still insist that it should be fought in accordance with the two crucial commitments undertaken by the Bush administration. First, that everything possible be done to avoid or reduce civilian casualties: this is the central requirement of jus in bello, justice in the conduct of war, which all armies in all wars are obligated to meet, whatever the moral status of the war itself. Second, that everything possible be done to ensure that the post-Saddam regime be a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people: this is the central requirement of what might be called jus post bellum--the least developed part of just war theory but obviously important these days. Democracy may be a utopian aspiration, given the history of Iraq and the foreign policy record of the US in the last half century; it certainly isn't easy to imagine realizing it. But something better than the Baath in Baghdad is easy to imagine, and we are morally bound to seek a political arrangement that accommodates the Kurds and the Shi'ites, whatever difficulties that involves."