Some defenders of the ongoing invasion of Iraq appeal to a venerable tradition, just war theory. From their perspective, the antidote to global violence lies neither in pacifism nor in the quest for world hegemony but in the domestication of war. War can foster world order and justice when it is a last resort, attentive to noncombatants, limited in scope and aims, and an act of self-defense. Yet merely to argue that war in the abstract is sometimes just is not to prove that this war is. Nor have all just war advocates recognized the limits and preconditions of their own doctrine. Any possibility that this war can enhance justice is voided when war’s leading advocates suppress ongoing democratic debate as to the causes, instruments and objectives of war.

Just war theory emphasizes the right of sovereign states to defend themselves against attack. Some advocates today expand this doctrine to argue that when attack is “imminent,” pre-emptive strikes against the potential aggressor are acceptable. Nonetheless, one must distinguish between hard evidence that an attack is plotted and the concern that a nation that does not share our interests or view of the world may develop enough weapons to resist our demands. The latter view of pre-emption morphs into a never-ending quest to prevent any nation save our own from holding modern high-tech weaponry. That goal failed after World War II. The proliferation of nuclear weaponry beyond the United States and Soviet states in the last two decades renders it even less operational today.

Indeed, “pre-emption” as exemplified by this invasion may aggravate the problems of proliferation. The United States must grapple with the fact that pre-emption sits within a broad international and technological context. Successful attack may not necessarily keep Iraq from disseminating biological weapons during the current invasion to terrorists. Even if successful, it risks increasing the incentive for other nations to speed nuclear developments lest they be pre-empted.

North Korea’s increasing militancy may have its own internal causes, but the lesson to many regimes is clear. Freedom from U.S. bullying isn’t possible until nuclear bombs are in place. The claim that opposition to nuclear proliferation stands at the center of this war effort is belied by the administration’s prior actions. It has consistently undermined nonproliferation agreements painfully negotiated by a host of prior U.S. administrations.

The concepts of imminent threat and of appropriate response are keys to the just war tradition, but both must be defined and interpreted amidst continually changing circumstances. How accurate is the information the administration supplies on Iraq’s weapons and what are its intentions in going to war? The administration has portrayed itself as reluctantly forced into war by the facts of Iraqi malfeasance. Nonetheless, its continually shifting rationale for war and its presentation of inflated and often subsequently discredited “facts” suggest otherwise. This strikes many as a commitment to war for domination in search of a publicly acceptable rationale.

The just warriors are right about one thing: No nation must forgo self-defense simply because it has blood on its own hands. U.S. efforts once to arm Saddam and even encourage his invasion of Iran – and perhaps Kuwait – do not forfeit our right to self-defense when he turns these arms on others. The blood on our hands does, however, entail another responsibility – that war be subject to full and ongoing public debate. Debate reminds us that war usually has many parents and forces citizens in the midst of war to confront the tragic violence that war inflicts. Debate alters the circumstances and conditions of peace overtures.

The Bush administration’s fierce attacks on civil liberties close the avenues of debate needed if current invocations of just war doctrine are not to be reduced to further sanctifications of the powerful. As the administration prosecutes this war, it has also secretly drafted a Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Georgetown Law School professor David Cole characterizes the proposal as providing “that any citizen, even native born, who supports even the lawful activities of an organization the executive branch deems ‘terrorist’ is presumptively stripped of his or her citizenship.” Administration efforts to manage the news of the war and to “embed” civilian reporters in active military units add to the cause for alarm.

The best just war theorists recognize that even rightly aggrieved nations can still overreach in their claims as to the justice and origins of their cause and in their prosecution of initially just wars. Only when both war and the prosecution of that war are subject to full and free debate can war’s inevitable tragedies be limited. The Bush administration’s shifting and deceptive rationales and objectives and its consistently secretive style should give all just warriors pause.

Domination and the sanctification of just us rather than justice for all may be the real goal and outcome here.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.