Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand

[J Wolfsberger]

The basic thesis is that there is a logic of strategy which says--to oversimplify it--that the expected benefits of an action (in terms of more security) must outweigh the expected costs and risks.

It used a legal rather than a strategic form of thinking, concluding that the establishment of guilt was sufficient. Once guilt was established, punishment proportionate to the guilt was applied.

This captures the difference between those who felt the war met Just War criteria and those who didn't. (I fell in the former group, largely because of his use of CW against the Kurds, and the genocide against the Marsh Arabs.)

What confuses the issue is attempts to bring Just War theory into the realm of international law, the hypocrisy and cynicism of the international community in living up to the ideal, and the clumsiness of the Bush Administration in making the case for war in Iraq.

I suspect the clumsiness had a lot to do with the second problem. I recall reading a quote from a UN official that there was debate over referring to the genocide in Rwanda as a "genocide," since calling it that would obligate the international community to intervene. Given that behavior from the UN, I can understand having a tough time figuring out how to present the justification for the war.