Can a War Ever Be Just

¶ … St. Augustine, "Even those with a just grievance cannot go to war out of hatred or thirst for vengeance." The war in Iraq fails to meet this reasonable criterion and is therefore not a "just war." While the typical excuse for the invasion of Iraq hones on the presence of weapons of mass destruction, the main motivation for military action in the Middle East had much to do with both hatred and a thirst for vengeance.

The events of September 11 preceded the war by no coincidence: vengeance was therefore a major cause for the attack on Iraq, even though no plausible connection was made. Moreover, the spurious search for weapons of mass destruction clarifies primary reasons for waging war. Underlying the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction rests an obvious desire for power and domination. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and those who support them, hearken to the theories of two of Plato's characters: Callicles from Gorgias and Thracymachus from the Republic.

These men affirm that the struggle for attaining and maintaining power over others is natural law; to impose moral value on such a natural instinct is futile. Moreover, the moral fabric of a society is based directly on the opinion of those persons in power. In other words, whoever holds political authority can control the moral laws of a nation or culture. When September 11 caused a mass reevaluation of Arabic culture by the United States, this type of moral authority became salient.

Furthermore, President Bush probably acted in the interests of the United States' massive military muscle. As Sir Francis Bacon posits, "a just and honorable foreign war is true exercise...foreign war is like the heat of exercise and serves to keep the body in health." After President Clinton incurred the wrath of the American military by cutting funding, Bush accomplished just the opposite. Finally, the American military could use the toys they had licked their lips over for years.

Key generals and army strategists were able to exercise their mental muscles and receive promotions. This was done in accordance to Sir Francis Bacon's theory, except for one key fact: the phrase "just and honorable" was ignored. However, much Bush and Blair try to excuse their actions, the war was neither just nor honorable. Had weapons of mass destruction been found, there would still be no just reason for invasion unless there was clear evidence that Saddam Hussain planned on launching an offensive. After all, St.

Augustine admits that "the defense of the innocent" is a just cause for war. This was not the case with Iraq, where weapons have not been found. The United States itself keeps an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction -- the largest in the world. Yet because of the nation's political and economic authority over the rest of the globe, the United States can impose its moral law on other cultures like Iraq. Because the terrorists on September 11 were Arabic, the reasoning goes, all Arabs must be immoral.

Therefore, Western society must seek to dominate and control Arab countries, by whatever means necessary. Karl von Clauswitz, who believed that war is essentially devoid of moral context, would agree that invading Iraq in order to gain power is a natural and justified act. The more "effectual means of applying force" von Clauswitz refers to, however, were in large part ignored by Bush.