Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties

With respect to the war in Iraq, it must be recognized that Pope Benedict has offered a somewhat stronger, more explicit opinion on the war in Iraq, as documented by Michael Griffin of the Catholic Peace Fellowshiop ("A New Peace Pope"). In a May 2, 2003 interview, then Cardinal Ratzinger reiterated the Pope's appeal to conscience and Martino's question of the applicability of the Just War criteria:

Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

About this we can note several things. First, as with the American bishops, Ratzinger's predication of the judgement that modern warfare is "inherently unjust" on the destructive capacity of modern weaponry is not immune from criticism. Just war scholar James Turner Johnson addresses this very criticism in "Just War, As It Was and Is First Things 149 (January 2005):

The problem with this conception of gross destructiveness as inherent in modern warfare, though, is that it is a contingent judgment being made to do service as a permanent truth. By contrast to the model of the two World Wars, as well as to imagined models of global nuclear holocaust, the actual face of warfare since 1945 has been that of civil wars and regional armed conflicts. Such armed conflict has indeed been bloody, sometimes genocidal, sometimes terroristic, always characterized by violence directed toward noncombatants; yet there has been no "World War III" -- or rather, given the ubiquity of this kind of conflict, this is in fact the face of "World War III." The destructiveness of these recent wars has everything to do with the choices made by those who fight them and nothing to do with any alleged inherent destructiveness of modern weaponry. In other words, the modern-war pacifists get it wrong: their contingent judgment does not describe a permanent truth about warfare in the modern age. The morality of modern war, as of all war, depends on the moral choices of those who fight it. It is not the choice to fight that is inherently wrong, as the "presumption against war" argument has it; it is the choice to fight for immoral reasons and/or by immoral means.

As Johnson says, the actual villians here "are not states as such but regional warlards, rulers who oppress their people to maintain or expand their power, and individuals and groups who use religious or ethnic difference as a justification for oppression, torture, and genocide." Civilian casualties occur not due to indiscriminate bombing so much as the fact that they are made the direct targets "the direct targets of weapons ranging from knives to automatic rifles to suicide bombs." A case in point would be the current state of Iraq, where Islamic fundamentalists are waging a campaign of terrorism and mass-murder against the civilians of Iraq who are in a process of building their own country and democratic government. On a similar note, says Johnson:

As progressively shown in the Gulf War of 1990-91, the bombing of Serbia over the oppression of the Albanian Kosovars, the campaign in Afghanistan aimed at al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and most recently (and most fully) in the recent use of armed force to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the United States, and to an important degree also the British, have channeled high technology in ways that allow war to be fought according to the actual principles of the just war jus in bello: this includes avoidance of direct, intended harm to noncombatants and avoidance of disproportionate harm in the use of otherwise justified means of war. The results, for those who care to look at them, are simply astonishing, especially by contrast to the level of destruction and the harm to noncombatant lives and property found, say, in carpet-bombing. This, too, is the face of modern war.

Today we see a new kind of confrontation. On the one hand, we see non-state actors, as well as warlords and heads of state who use relatively unsophisticated means to gain their ends by targeting, terrorizing, and killing noncombatants and, as in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers or the bombing of the Madrid trains, intentionally causing lasting property damage, civilian deaths, and widespread fear. On the other hand, we find a state that has used its intellectual and economic capital to develop weapons, tactics, strategies, and training directed toward maximizing discrimination and proportionality in the use of armed force. Both of these developments in the actual face of war need to be taken seriously and integrated into a contemporary moral assessment of war based on a recovery of the classic meaning of the just war tradition.

Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics

I'd like to touch briefly on the issue of casualties in the U.S.-Iraqi conflict and how they are referenced, first in relation to the U.S. "Shock & Awe" campaign; secondly in relation to certain statistics.

"Shock and Awe" - A Case of Indiscriminate Bombing?

Initiating the U.S. war with Iraq in 2003, the "Shock and Awe" campaign was designed to shatter the will of Saddam Hussein by strategically obliterating key military targets and infrastructure. Described as "a devastating premeditated attack on a civilian urban population," Alternet.com likened the Bush administration's plans for the campaign to "Hulagu Khan and Tamerlane, the Mongol warlords who laid bloody waste to Baghdad in 1258 and 1401" and predicted that "Baghdad could become the 21st century's Guernica," the Basque village carpet-bombed by the Nazis in 1937 ("Shock & Awe: Guernica Revisited"). Other anti-war critics compared the campaign to Dresden, even Hiroshima.

Granted, many of these comparisons were made prior to the launch of the campaign itself (if anything, a testament to the effectiveness of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign, who freely publicized their intentions so as to intimidate the Iraqi military), but even to this day you will find similer allegations. Michael Moore, for instance, made use of the imagery in his notirious propaganda film Fahrenheit 911, portraying Iraq as a peaceful nation with footage of care-free children flying kites, set against the thunderous explosions and falling bombs of March 22, 2003.

Writing for NationalGeographic.com, Inside Shock & Awe), Bijal Trivedi provides a brief history of guided-bombing, noting that the weapons employed in the 2003 bombing campaign constituted significant advancements in targeting technology beyond anything used in the first Gulf War (during which only 7% of the bombs used were "smart").

But of all the bombs and weapons launched in Iraq in the first Gulf War, only about seven percent were "smart." And even these bombs had shortcomings. Laser-guided precision weapons were accurate, but bad weather or clouds of smoke from burning oil fields often made it impossible to find targets. Worse, pilots needed to fly relatively low and within range of enemy fire.

Just a decade later, 'Shock and Awe' used another advance in precision bombing—the Global Positioning System, or GPS. GPS guided bombs, such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition or JDAM, can be dropped from more than twice the altitude of earlier guided bombs and from farther away, helping pilots avoid antiaircraft fire. Tomahawk missiles guided by terrain recognition software and digitized maps, or the newest models directed by the Global Positioning System satellites, can find their targets regardless of weather conditions or smoke. . . .

Curiously, it is a testament to the precision of the military's bombing that they ultimately failed to achieve the desired end of the campaign -- :

A bizarre testament to the precision of the weapons used during the first night of 'Shock and Awe' was that the streetlights still functioned. Electricity flowed to the city, including the Palestine Hotel where journalists frantically filed their reports. During the opening days of the war, even Iraqi government television was untouched and still broadcasting.

Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical. Some buildings were completely demolished, while neighboring structures were untouched. Some buildings remained standing while their innards were gutted. In others still, only individual floors were erased.

The U.S. Shock & Awe campaign appears to validate James Turner Johnson's claims that in the U.S. armed forces of today "we find a state that has used its intellectual and economic capital to develop weapons, tactics, strategies, and training directed toward maximizing discrimination and proportionality in the use of armed force." ("Just War as it Was and Is" First Things 149 January 2005: 14-24).

Likewise, in a Frontline Investigate report on the Iraq war and civilian casualties, all the participants interviewed indicate that a priority for the military was the minimization of harm to civilians. This was admittedly easier said than done, difficulty rendered by the fact that U.S. troops found themselves attacked by Iraqi soldiers wearing civilian attire, driving taxicabs -- in the words of Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, "violating the laws of land warfare and putting its own people at risk."

Nevertheless, military historian Frederick W. Kagan reminds us:

When you're talking about civilian casualties in war, it's very important to understand that there will always be civilian casualties in war. You can look at any specific instance when there was civilian casualties and point to, frequently, errors of judgment, or misperceptions, or confusion, or lots of things that cause them. You can dissect any given incident and say, "Well, they shouldn't have done this and they shouldn't have done that." But it's almost certain that, in any large war, that there are going to be incidents, and there are going to be civilian casualties.

The U.S military took extraordinary pains to avoid civilian casualties in a campaign in which an incredible amount of ordinance was dropped all across a country, including in extremely densely inhabited areas. Overall, America's success in avoiding large numbers of civilian casualties was astonishing.

The problem is we're living in a world where the expected rate of success is 100 percent. We count up from zero how many civilian casualties there are, and every one is unacceptable. Of course, in principle, that's true. In war, reality doesn't actually work that way.

The Questionable Use of Statistics

100,000? 50,000? 37,000? 12,000? -- When the question of casualties is raised a number of statistics are bandied about. One blogger I've encountered is known for his persistent citation of "100,000" casualties. When he used the statistic in one of our many discussions I took him to task, inquiring where he obtained it (he neglected to respond).

The "100,000" of course comes from a controversial study by the British medical journal The Lancet, regarding which one need only point to the many criticisms of its methodology -- see "100,000 Dead - Or 8,000?", by Fred Kaplan. (Slate. Oct. 29, 2004), along with a thorough and sustained analysis by the blogging collective ChicagoBoyz. In fact, not even the Iraq Body Count (no friend of the Bush administration) will touch a statistic that high -- a website which in itself is notably flawed in its own gathering of numbers. The blogger in question has since taken to citing statistics in the range of 50-100,000 -- which leads me to believe he has taken no time to investigate the validity of the source.

This post is not to discount the loss of innocents. It is to the credit of our military that they undertake the measures they do to guard against civilian casualties. But of the statistics that are often cited by certain parties against the U.S. war in (and subsequent occupation of) Iraq, there is little/no recognition of causal factors except that of the United States military.

Which, in retrospect, is perhaps the point: If the U.S. hadn't invaded, there would be no occupation; no occupation, no beheadings and hostage takings and suicide bombings inflicted on the citizens of a new nation struggling to rise from the ashes and fashion a new democratic government.

If the U.S. never engaged Iraq, the only casualties would be the mass graves of 300,000 who perished for their opposition to Saddam Hussein.

On the Iraq War, Potential Future Wars, and the Probable Positions of the Popes Thereof - "Tales of the Mailbag" Dept., I. Shawn McElhinney corresponds with critic of the Iraq war. Here is a continuation of the same discussion. Shawn notes that the person with whom he is corresponding is a polite and principled individual -- apparently a rare combination in the anti-war crowd.

U.S. - "Outsourcing Torture to Uzbekistan?"

A reader has alerted me to this article "U.S. Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer", by Don Von Natta, Jr. New York Times May 1, 2005, according to which there is "growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department." (

Crooked Timber goes a step further, titling their post Outsourcing torture to Uzbekistan).

Back in February Mark Shea wrote a piece for Crisis magazine: Toying with Evil: May a Catholic Advocate Torture?, March 9, 2005, on disturbing cases of conservative Catholics who attempted to offer justification for the obtaining of information by torture. If it is the case that the U.S. is accepting information obtained by third-party interrogation-by-torture -- which thus far U.S. officials and the CIA have denied -- Catholics should demand a full investigation into such matters. Likewise, they should support the passing of two current House and Senate bills which seek to ban the practice of "extraordinary rendition" -- or the exporting of prisoners to other countries for interrogation.

As far as the larger issue of U.S. relations with Uzbekistan and our collaboration with the Uzbekistan government (which had assisted the United States in its removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan), I recommend Nathan Hamm's Registan.net, a Eurasia news and commentary blog with special focus "on Afghanistan and the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus."

Apparently the chief source of the allegations comes from Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job under allegations of professional/personal misconduct and is presently running for Parliament on an anti-Iraqi war platform. In "Craig Murray Aside" (March 23, 2005), Nathan questions the timing of Murray's humanitarian concerns ("[Murray's] care about torture in Uzbekistan seemed to peak whenever the FO brought up allegations concerning his behavior as ambassador"), and weighs the effectiveness of various measures proposed to further human rights in Uzbekistan: what he dubs Murray's "may our souls be pure" path" of isolation and non-involvement, vs. the "may our influence make Uzbekistan a better place" approach.

Also on this issue, a lengthy and extremely detailed report - Uzbekistan: Victimiser or Victim? -- by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group on the state of things in Uzbekistan. One section entitled Our Man in Tashkent: the case of Craig Murray offers a detailed look at the circumstances under which Murray left his post as ambassador in 2003, followed by an investigation into his charges against the Uzbekistan government. On-the-ground investigation led BHHRG to question the validity of certain allegations by Murray (such as those mentioned in this Janary 2005 interview, that the regime had "boiled" two prisoners to death):

BHHRG has concluded that while some of the deaths in custody may be from natural causes or suicide (which is sadly common is many countries' prisons) others may result from prisoners attacking those convicted of religiously inspired terrorist crimes. Such prisoners are incarcerated with run-of-the-mill criminals, possibly to prevent them conspiring among themselves. The government's account of what happened to Muzafar Avezov and Husnidin Alimov, the alleged victims of ‘boiling', would bear this out - it claims that the two men were attacked by other inmates who threw boiling water over them during a fight. BHHRG's own prison doctor confirmed that prisoner on prisoner violence is a common problem in the UK's jails and that throwing boiling fat, water at other inmates is not unknown. Tension between incarcerated, mainly young men, is a problem in all prison systems.

Although two examples which tend to exculpate the authorities of wrong doing do not add up to the acquittal in all cases, they are significant. The allegations against Uzbekistan have been ongoing for several years and it is hard to see what benefits accrue to the Karimov regime by consistently ignoring criticism and blithely continuing to torture suspects. On 14th July, 2004 Washington cancelled $18 m. in non-military aid to the country on the basis of hostile human rights reports - surely Uzbekistan would be cleaning up its act in an attempt to avoid regime change, orange-style. . . .

Among the conclusions the BHHRG reached:

Human rights groups seem keen to rush to judgement in cases where prisoners have died in custody, relying on allegations of brutality based on hearsay and photographs rather than proper forensic evidence. Even Freedom House's representative in Tashkent, Robert Freedman, expressed a desire for something better than “anecdotal” material on which to base claims of brutality. When outside experts have examined deaths in custody their findings have basically confirmed the version of events given by the authorities. BHHRG found conditions in the main isolator in Tashkent satisfactory compared with prisons in other post Soviet republics. In December 2004, Karimov bowed to calls from the international community and ordered a moratorium on the death penalty still operational for two types of offences.

Greg Mockeridge, I. Shawn McElhinney on "Legitimate Diversity of Opinion"

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that not even one hundred people hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is. Undoubtedly, the actions of Catholics themselves have helped create many of these misconceptions. One way such a misunderstanding can be created is to distort the difference between doctrinal imperatives and disciplinary requirements with that of prudential judgments. Those Catholics who make such distortions often ascribe magisterial status to their own opinions and cast aspersions on the fidelity of those who express contrary views. It doesn’t matter whether or not those contrary views are well within the diversity of opinion enjoyed by loyal Catholics. Some of the most common issues where this kind of misunderstanding is perpetrated are waging a just war, application of the death penalty, and economic justice. . . .

Thus begins a "must-read" guest-editorial by Greg Mockeridge, with additional commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney at Rerum Novarum, about which I'd like to express a few thoughts.

* * *

The point of Greg's debate is a simple one, a matter of common sense, but lost on some parties to such a degree that it bears reiterating:

One may have legitimate differences of opinion over the war in Iraq, the application of capital punishment, and various economic policies.

One may also marshal the support of the Holy Father's encyclicals and the vast body of Catholic tradition in the defense of one's position on these matters. A good illustration here being the ongoing debate between what David L. Jones describes as "Whig Thomists & Augustinian Thomists" over the compatibility of Catholic Christianity with "the American experiment," or liberal democracy. (The focus of RFC-affiliate website The Church & the Liberal Tradition).

But so long as the Church has not spoken authoritatively on these matters -- so long as these issues, however controversial they may be, remain in the area of prudential judgement, about which one may have a "legitimate diversity of opinion" -- one may indeed respectfully disagree with a fellow Catholic, or priest, or Bishop, or even the Pope for that matter -- and yet remain squarely within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.

• It was for this reason that I challenged the Zwicks for their hatchet job on Michael Novak, Fr. Neuhaus and Cardinal Avery Dulles in the pages of the Houston Catholic Worker (Against The Grain August 19, 2003); and likewise countered the suggestion of a reader that I "follow Ratzinger's lead" with respect to the war in Iraq and my interest in "the neocons" (Against The Grain Nov. 18, 2003).

• It was for this reason that Russel Shaw, even as he himself opposed the war in Iraq, defended the right of his fellow Catholics to disagree with the Holy See on the matter -- without being unjustly tarred with the label of "dissenter" (Iraq, Weigel and the Pope Catholic Exchange, March 31, 2003):
  Given the limits of human knowledge, even prudential judgments by prudent people can be mistaken. In the present instance, the pope and Catholics who differed with him - conscientious and informed people like Novak, Weigel and Hudson - based their stands on an assessment of likely consequences of different courses of action. Since the assessments of what was more or less likely to happen in the future were different, so were the conclusions about what course of action to take.

  To disagree with the pope in this manner is not dissent. It's not as if Pope John Paul II had taught a definitive moral principle (e.g., direct attacks on noncombatants are ruled out) which the disagreeing Catholics rejected. They agreed with the principle. They disagreed about something contingent and by no means certain: what the future outcome of complex, competing scenarios was likely to be.

• It was for this reason that Archbishop John Meyers recognized the right of Catholics to disagree over the war, while pointing out other fundamental moral issues which do not allow for differences ("Pro-choice candidates and church teaching" Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2004):
  . . . Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

• And, it was for this reason that our Holy Father, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarified the areas of "legitimate diversity of opinion" in addressing the proper conditions for the reception of communion ("Worthiness To Receive Commmunion: General Principles paragraph 3).

Greg's editorial, and I. Shawn McElhinney's commentary, address the excessive speech and grave distortions of one particular member of our online Catholic community, Stephen Hand of TCRNews, who appears "unable or unwilling to engage in any substantive discussion" on these issues, forgoing "passionate, intelligent and charitable dialogue and debate" to instead engage in deliberate misrepresentation and calumnious attacks of a nature that mimic the very 'radtrads' he had so deftly criticized in the past. As Greg observes:

. . . he dogmatized his opinions on these issues to the extent of maligning those who hold different views within legitimate Catholic parameters, while those same individuals have gladly extended to him the same courtesy that he has so viciously tried to deny them.

I would note here that Stephen Hand is one who I have offered qualified praised in years past, and whom I regard as a friend and comrade in this loose-knit online Catholic community.

And, as friends are sometimes called to correct each other with respect and charity, I trust that Stephen will give due consideration to the concerns expressed by Greg and I. Shawn McElhinney at Rerum Novarum.

As Stephen said himself in TCRNews' Mission Statement:

"We are partisan to the Church's Magisterium alone and respect truth wherever it is found. With the Church, and subject to her correction, we seek to transcend the old polarities of right and left, whether political or theological, knowing that the Church both conserves and develops in time. In point of fact there are no "conservatives," "liberals," or "traditionalists," there are only those who obey the living magisterium of the Church, which alone may interpret the scriptures and the Church's tradition---and, alas, those who do not.

It is true that where the Church has ruled formally and authoritatively, she brooks no dissent. (Incidentally, this was the point raised by Catholic Answers in its recognition of "non-negotiable" moral issues (Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics) which should be taken into consideration when voting for a presidential candidate).

But, as Greg points out, there are other indeed issues for which the Catechism and the Holy Father allow for legitimate differences of opinion. Like it or not, the issues mentioned by Greg -- capital punishment, the war in Iraq and the WOT, and economics -- fall within this area. And in such cases we best be cautious in our posts -- lest we assert our own interpretations as if they were on par with, and carried the weight of, the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium.

Welcoming the election of Pope Benedict XVI

• Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI Roundup! April 23, 2005. A roundup of reactions to the election of Pope Benedict XVI, from bloggers and pundits around the world.
• Getting to know Pope Benedict XVI, April 24, 2005.
• Pope Benedict XVI's Inaugural Mass - another roundup of commentary. April 24, 2005.

Pope John Paul II: 1920-2005

Breaking the relative silence of my "other blogs" -- Religion and Liberty and Catholic Just War -- for which I apologize, here are some posts of mine from Against The Grain, covering the death of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II and his pontificate:

• The World Remembers, Reflects and Pays Tribute to Pope John Paul II - a roundup of commentary by the television and newspapers, as well as more substantial commentary by various bloggers.

• "After the Funeral, the Coming Storm . . .", on the skewed portrayal of the Pope by the Mainstream Media and the prominent display of liberal bias by certain pundits, with a roundup of "coverage of the coverage" by Catholic bloggers and periodicals.

• Further Commentary of John Paul II: A Roundup

• George Weigel on Pope John Paul II - Weigel is a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of the 1999 biography Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II, which was published in eleven languages. He has traveled with the Pope and over the course of his life has explicated his thought in articles, interviews and addresses. It is only fitting to give him special recognition in his coverage of John Paul II.

• On a similar note, a roundup of Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, Michael Novak and Cardinal Avery Dulles' articles and commentary on Pope John Paul II throughout the years of his pontificate.

"Rad Trad Iraq & Roll"

"Politics makes strange bedfellows" indeed. -- In "Rad Trad Iraq & Roll", Greg Mockeridge of The Lidless Eye Inquisition takes a look at the similiarities between the RadTrad and liberal Catholic criticism of "conservative" Catholics on the war in Iraq:

One does not have to read a lot of radtrad polemics to see that confusing and/or distorting the differences between doctrinal imperatives with prudential judgment is one of their hallmarks. I would go so far as to argue that it is their cardinal error. Ironically, this, among other things, often puts them in the same bed, albeit at different ends, as the left wing dissenting National Catholic Distorter . . . I mean Reporter crowd. Few events in recent history did more to draw these merchants of confusion out in the open than the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq. This time, with few exceptions, radtrads were not only in the same bed with the left wing loony contingent in the Church, but wrapped in each other's arms, so to speak, on the same side of that bed. . . .

I have to admit, it made for a peculiar sight: the vehement criticism of "progressive" Catholics -- otherwise dissenting from the Church on any number of moral issues -- calling for unwavering obedience to the Holy Father in denouncing the war in Iraq.

The post is written largely in response to criticism of "neo-Catholics" from the Catholic traditionalist fringe, that is to say Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Center @ Catholic Apologetics International.

Iraqi Elections - Ongoing Roundup of Blogs & Commentary

Iraqi Election Watch provides inside information from Iraq on the historic Jan. 30 elections compiled by FDD staff and fellows. Iraqi Media Excerpts from Iraqi news sources on developments related to the election. Iraqi Blogs - Highlights from Arabic and English-language blogs that provide new or interesting information on what's actually happening inside Iraq. Democracy Activists - Reports from Iraqi democracy activists on the ground. FDD Analysis - Commentary and analysis on the campaign, voting, and final results. From the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

• From Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis):
  The AP photo by Adam Butler records an 83-year-old Iraqi preparing to vote in London. The AP reports that "[t]his is the first time she has participated in an Iraqi election" (see other AP report). The faces and smiles tell the story of freedom. All eyes are on the Iraqi elections this weekend. We pray that God will protect the brave who dare to go and vote for a decent and dignified future for themselves and their families (see London Timesonline report, "Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose"). Thanks to President Bush and our military for making this future possible. Since the picture speaks for itself, no further commentary is needed today.

• John Schultz (Catholic Light) passes along an email from Battalion Chaplain Lyle Shackelford delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq, who asks for prayers on behalf of all who read:
  . . . There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray, then our enemy will prevail (See Ephesians 6:10-17). A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33. David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel. (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.

  I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots. They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy.

  This is not a game for them. It is an historic mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots, No elections. Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.

• Lane Core Jr. (Blog from the Core explains why our future hangs in the balance on January 30-31, 2005:
  If we do not succesfully plant the seeds of democratic government in the Middle East — beginning with Iraq, and expanding thence over the years & decades & generations -- our children and grandchildren will be condemned to live in a world where freedom of religion and conscience -- where the rule of law and respect for individual dignity -- won't even be memories because they will have been obliterated.

  The power of the United States of America — military, financial, diplomatic, and cultural — to project its force around the world, to remove despotic regimes and enforce the beginnings of freedom amongst peoples who have never known it, or have no living memory of it, is what stands between us and the Dark Ages of the Future.

  That, and the courage of Iraqi citizens — those who stand for office, and those who vote. Please keep them, and our soldiers in Iraq, in your prayers these days.

• Senator "No Blood for Oil" Kennedy took the opportunity to raise the spectre of Vietnam, calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops following the election. Belmont Club responds, marshalling the witness of Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk.

• The Daily Demarche has a special request
  For all the Bush haters out there, for all the pundits who think it is clever to spell Republican with a triple "k", I have a challenge for all of you. For one day, less probably by the time you hear of this, devote some of that energy to wishing success to the people of Iraq in this election. Forget for one day your raging anger and calls for us to abandon Iraq. It’s not going to happen, and for this single day we could use your support. You can resume your attacks on the Administration on Monday - because you live in a free land.

• Ali -- an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad:

  All my life like all Iraqis, I was not in control of my life. I started looking to myself as a humanist many years ago. Maybe it's because I lost belief in my government and even sometimes in my country and my people. My country was just a stupid large piece of dirt that meant nothing and offered nothing to me but suffering and humiliation. . . .

  Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time. I can't wait until tomorrow.

Joyful Iraqi Exiles Vote in Landmark Election by Suleiman al-Khalidi. Reuters. Jan. 28, 2005. Man drives to Calgary to vote in Iraqi election (14 hours!) - CBC News. Jan. 28, 2005. Iraqis in Australia cast first votes in election, by Michael Perry. Reuters. Jan. 28, 2005.

• Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine has a roundup of quotes from Iraqi bloggers' as they anticipate the vote. "They all should be an inspiration -- and perhaps a shame -- to those of us who have become blase about democracy and freedom, who growl over our choices and don't even bother showing up at the polls. Democracy is fragile and precious; we forget that. These people don't." Here's a Iraqi bloggers covering the election, also courtesy of Jeff.
• FriendsofDemocracy.Org, another organization bringing you "ground-level election news from the Iraqi people."

• Radioblogger has a photo-blog of proud Iraqis voting in El Toro, California. Lots of smiling faces and an interesting story -- two Iraqis men "came to vote today, with their families, and recognized each other. They started talking and realized that they hadn't seen each other in fifty years. They were about ten years old in Iraq the last time they saw each other." What a reunion!

• How do you begin to contain the emotion of contributing to freedom for the very first time in over 50 years. And for many - the first time ever in their life?" -- Kevin McCullough captures the emotions of many Iraqis with another series of photos.

• Michelle Malkin shares a relevant question from a reader: "Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?"

• From BlogsofWar:

  Atheer Almudhafer, from Falls Church, Va., gives the Iraqi sign of victory after casting his absentee ballot at the New Carrollton, Md., voting station, Jan. 28, 2005. His finger is marked with indelible blue ink, intended to prevent double voting. "I give the sign of peace and voting. Together it is victory." [Defense LINK]
  

• A history lesson from Arthur Herman ("Sic Temper Tyrannis: 1649 and now" NRO, January 28, 2004):
  This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day -- January 30 -- as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.

• Captain's Quarters relays this report from FoxNews
  Thousands of people are now walking a 13-mile stretch between Abu Ghraib and Gazaliyah to cast votes in the elections, military sources tell Fox News. The mass march has been caught by unmanned drones, and Fox says they will soon have pictures of the subtle demonstration of the Iraqi desire for liberty.

  More as it develops. Fox also reports long lines in most polling stations, with some even calling for more ballot materials as they run out of ballots faster than they anticipated.

• Arthur Chrenkoff has more reactions of Iraqi voters (E-Day & E-Day, Part II, including this from sometime Chrenkof correspondent:
  Haider Ajina: "I just called my father in Baghdad to see if he and the rest of my Iraqi family over there have voted yet. He said we were all just heading out the door, but we will wait and talk to you (chuckling). I heard a strength and joy in his voice and could hear the rest of my relatives in the back ground. It sounded like a family reunion. My 84 year old Iraqi Grandmother will be voting for the first time in her life. My father (a naturalized U.S. Citizen) said we are all getting ready to go vote in a school near by. This school was just being built when I left Iraq in the late 70's. I know where it is and I can picture my father, uncles aunties and cousins along with the rest of the family walking through my old neighborhood to that school and vote. My father said 'For the first time in my life I voted in the U.S. and now I can vote in Iraq. We want our voices to count, we want to decide our future and we want the world to know we have a voice in our future and in our government, this will give the Iraqi government true legitimacy, just like in America'.

  "I can now dream of the day when I can take my family to meet my extended family and the places were I played and grew up. They will also see what our men and women in our military fought for.

  "To all the men and women who have served and serving in Iraq, to all the families of those who have paid the ultimate price to all those who have suffered during their service in Iraq, my family’s and my deepest thanks, gratitude and pride both from the U.S. and Iraq for all the sacrifices, endurance and service for our great country and Iraq and the Iraqis. God bless all of you and keep you safe."

• Voices from the Revolution - Friends of Democracy interviews with citizens from the Zy Qar province and reports that the Election Goes Smoothly in Kirkuk ("During the elections the kids have nothing to do as everyone is busy voting").

• More photoblogging the election from Ryan in Baghdad ("Farmer by genetics, Lawyer by training, currently "vacationing" in Iraq and advising the Iraqi government on border security issue"). Ryan cites a pertinent quote from Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror:
  Any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

BREAKING NEWS! - Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings, by Scott Ott [Scrappleface.com] (2005-01-30) -- News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election. Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime. Hopes for a return to the stability of tyranny waned as rank upon rank of Iraqi men and women filed out of precinct stations, each armed with the distinctive mark of the new freedom guerrillas -- an ink-stained index finger, which one former Ba'athist called "the evidence of their betrayal of 50 years of Iraqi tradition." Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem.

• Belmont Club asks: "Did we win?", comparing a number of MSM (mainstream media) reports on Iraqi voter turnout. Speaking to Reuters, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole called the elections "a joke," and reinforces his prediction in a gloomy post to his own blog; however, eyewitness reports of an incredible voter turnout from BBC News Reporter's Log beg to differ.

• Jeff Jarvis (Buzzmachine) believes this is "Not an election, a revolution" and provides an additional roundup of news headlines. Jeff asks a question which every American should think about:
  This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

• Another roundup of Iraqi bloggers, also courtesy of Jeff.

• Captain's Quarters is reporting impressive turnout numbers by region; a change of heart at Reuters, and a welcome suprise from the Queen of Pessimistic Journalism: The New York Times acknowledges victory!

• More analysis of the MSM's change in temperament from Instapundit, along with a great picture of Iraqis displaying "the ink-stained finger of democracy."

Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets, by Dexter Filkins. New York Times January 30, 2005. Iraqis Express Pride, Hope at Election, by Ellen Knickmeyer. Associated Press. January 30, 2005. Iraq election declared 'success' BBC News. January 30, 2005.

• Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar @ Iraq The Model conclude: "The People have won"
  The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:< p>"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".

  This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street. The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer! . . .

  I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.

  I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

• Iraqis fight a lonely battle for democracy, The Guardian January 30, 2005. Michael Ignatieff explains why "whatever your view of the war, you should embrace today's election":
  Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders. . . .

  The Bush administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.

  Liberals can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neo-conservative bombast. Anti-war ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies. And then there are the ideological fools in the Arab world, and even a few in the West, who think the 'insurgents' are fighting a just war against US imperialism. This makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates - fascists.

• Liberty Marches Forward - Citizen Smash, aka. "Indepundit", has a another roundup of photos and stirring quotes:
  We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of Liberty." -- John F. Kennedy

  "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." – George W. Bush

• Via Little Green Footballs, an email from Mike, a major stationed in the Sunni Triangle:
  The polls closed at 1700 (5PM) our time and 8AM CST but the initial reports are that 72% of the Iraqis voted. Folks we should be ashamed. We can’t get that many people to vote in the US and no one is trying to kill us.

• Via Michelle Malkin, a child's display of solidarity with Iraqi voters:
  10-year-old Billings girl, Shelby Dangerfield won't be going to the polls. But she will be will be showing her support by wearing ink on her finger - just like those Iraqis who have voted.

  "It will symbolize our support if we wear ink on our fingers," Shelby said. "We're not forcing them to vote, but they have a chance to do it and they should take that chance."

  "10-year-old supports vote of Iraqi people" Billings Gazette January 30, 2005 .

• President Congratulates Iraqis on Election The White House. January 30, 2005.

* * *

So that's the roundup for the weekend . . . stay tuned to the various blogs mentioned above for the results and the aftermath, and please keep the people of Iraq, together with our troops, in your prayers.

"Anti-anti-neoconservatism"

Recommended reading: Anti-anti-neoconservatism Claremont Review of Books Winter, 2004.

Gerard Alexander reviews two books that will most likely find appeal with Bush-haters and critics of the war in Iraq: America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stephen Halper & Jonathan Clarke, and Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana by Gary J. Dorrien -- both of which, according to Alexander, demonstrate a blatant flaw critics of the Bush administration:

Bashing George W. Bush has been the thinking person's sport for four years now. Foreign policy intellectuals play their own version of the game: bashing neoconservatives. This is Bush-bashing with a Ph.D. It has proven surprisingly popular, attracting onto the field not only liberals but also some traditional conservatives and many conspiracy theorists, for whom the neocons are the new Trilateral Commission. Sadly, a lot of this commentary is plagued by the same vices as Bush-bashing in general: chronic exaggeration, fast-and-loose connection-drawing, and over-the-top hyperbole. Reading it is enough to turn you into a fervent anti-anti-neoconservative.

This is a pity, because with Bush's re-election "the neoconservative question" is ripe for debate, and this high-stakes debate should be as well-informed as possible.

Alexander criticizes those who attempt to trace the intellectual roots of today's neocons to the original neocons of the 1960's (by and large the staff of The Public Interest and Commentary), problematic because

"the first group called "neocon" wasn't especially homogeneous; the second group isn't much more so; and the two put together aren't at all . . . the neocons disagreed with each other almost as much as they agreed. They had in common a repulsion for the New Left. But to treat them as a tightly-knit "ism" is like treating "Protestants" that way just because they all left Catholicism for vaguely related reasons").

Even worse than the homogenizing of the first neocons, says Alexander, "is the joint homogenizing of both groups called neocon" into one ambiguous mass due to their support of the war in Iraq and the establishment of democracy in the Middle East. Readers of various political blogs (and Catholic bloggers on just war theory) will readily identify this "over-identification of doctrinal similarities":

Just quote someone labeled a neocon as saying something, then designate that something as part of neocon ideology, and finally suggest that all neocons, including those in office, devote themselves to advocating that something. The result is not just homogenization but hyperbole.

Gerard Alexander goes on to demonstrate the messy and misleading consequences of such thinking in recent discussion of "the neocons" and U.S. foreign policy. Of course, he is not without his own reservations about certain proposals of the neoconservatives, but as he says, "Americans need to decide what to make of neoconservative ideas. It might be possible to make a case effectively demolishing them. So far, that case hasn't been made."

Well worth reading.

Relevant articles:

• The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is, by Irving Kristol. Weekly Standard 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47.
• Neocons: Some Memories, by Michael Novak. National Review May 20, 2003.
• The End of Neoconservatism and This Time: Neoconservatism Redux, by James Neuchterlin. First Things 63 (May 1996) and 66 (October 1996), respectively.
• Defining Neoconservate, by Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 140 (February 2004): 58-77.

Discussions on Iraq and Just War

• Just War as Love for Neighbor, by Rob Vischer. Mirror of Justice. 1/27/05
• No WMD's: No Just War? - More discussion at Amy Welborn's Open Book. 1/27/05.
• Is the Iraq War a "just" war? Steve (aka "Feddie"), Southern Appeal. 1/28/05.
• "Just War as Principled Imperialism", Rob Vischer, Mirror of Justice. 1/28/05.
• Just The War Facts, Ma'am Leo. (Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture). 1/28/05.
• Iraq and Just War Theory, Bradley Lewis (Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture). 1/28/05.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's Historical Revisionism

Excerpt from the confirmation hearings of soon-to-be Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:

Rice: It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place--- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.

And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Boxer: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

According to blogger someguy, Boxer's "it was WMD, period" attempt at historical revision is easily dispatched by a check of the congressional record itself. The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 includes, in addition to the possession of WMD's, charges of "brutal repression of [Iraq's own] civilian population"; refusal to "release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained"; "continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States" -- including the attempted assassination of President Bush, Sr. and attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces enforcing the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council; the aid and harbor of international terrorist organizations, including members of Al Qaeda . . . et al. (Weapons of Mass Distraction January 19, 2005).

"Aiding and Abetting the Enemy"

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now. . . .

Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan (letter to BlackFive.net).

Fr. James Schall on "When War Must Be The Answer"

It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace.

Christopher Dawson, "The Catholic Attitude to War," 1937

* * *

Last year George Weigel wrote a brief article on just war theory ("Force of law, law of force", The Catholic Difference April 2003), in which he stated that:

The juxtaposition of "the force of law and the law of force," a trope that got established in the Catholic conversation months before armed force was used to enforce disarmament in Iraq, will likely be a prominent feature of the post-war Catholic debate. . . .

The "force of law/law of force" juxtaposition neatly divides the world into two camps. Those who wish to settle conflicts through diplomacy, political compromise, and the mechanisms of international law live on one side of this Great Divide; those who believe in using armed force are on the other. Given that dichotomy, the moral choice seems clear: the first camp.

The problem, which involves both content and context, is that the world doesn’t work the way the trope suggests. . . . Is the relationship between international law and armed force a zero-sum game, such that every use of armed force necessarily entails a loss for the "force of law"?

Fr. James Schall revisits this topic in "When War Must Be The Answer" (Policy Review No. 128., December 2004), in which he delivers a broadside to "war is not the answer" protestors in a substantial reflection on the justifiable use of armed force, just war theory, and the war on terrorism.

My recommmendation would to be read Schall's essay alongside just war scholar James Turner Johnson' latest piece in First Things: "Just War: As It Was and Is" (No. 149, January 2005), which unfortunately is not yet available online.

For the sake of a counter-argument, see this essay on just war theory by brother John Raymond of the The Community of The Monks of Adoration, recommended by Fr. Jim Tucker.

As an intellectual/academic exercise, compare Brother Raymond's presentation of just war theory and his predisposition towards pacifism with the critiques of Father Schall and James Turner Johnson.

Iraq -- Bringing in the New Year with a Prayer

We still dream of a democratic Iraq ruled by the law
And this is something we deserve…this is the land of the first law in history
I still find my home in Iraq… it's still the best place in the world in my eyes
I will not waste a minute listening to the pessimists
Instead, I will add a brick to the house we're building
And I will write a word….and pray

I will pray for the ones who fought for the Iraqi freedom
I will pray for the hundreds of thousands who won't spend the night with their families, staying awake on the front
line to keep me safe
I will pray for the ones who gave their lives for the sake of others' wellbeing
I will pray for those who went through all the pains
And never lost hope
I will pray for a free and democratic Iraq
I will pray for the world's peace

Happy New Year.

Mohammed, Iraq The Model