In my twenties I was a pacifist; I believed that violence, particularly military violence, was counterproductive and unethical. I could accept violence in self-defense, but I believed (and still do) that few wars met this criterion. My rejection of violence extended to the death penalty, which seemed barbaric in a civilized society.
These views have changed over the years, especially since 9/11. Since that time I have examined in some detail the nature of oppressive regimes and the monsters they produce (for example, the Lebanese terrorist whom the Israelis just swapped for the bodies of their soldiers).
Here are my still evolving thoughts on issues in which violence is central; I find them the most difficult to grapple with, both as an individual and as a member of society):
1. The Death Penalty
I now believe there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty for certain crimes. Some acts are so abhorrent that the persons who commit them forfeit their right to continue living.
Yet I remain opposed to the death penalty, for two reasons:
First, it is impossible to apply uniformly. There are always racial and class biases, which make it inherently unjust. While the same might be said for our criminal justice system in general, we need to be especially careful when it comes to the ultimate penalty.
Second, the death penalty serves little purpose besides revenge. Its deterrent ability is nil or negligible. Life imprisonment, an alternative sentence, gives society ample means to protect itself against future crimes.
2. Pre-emptive war
As discussed in earlier pieces, pre-emptive war is already countenanced by the international community and international law. If a country is going to be attacked, it has the right to strike first. This doctrine has most famously been used by the Israelis: in the 1967 war, in air strikes against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981, and recently against Syria’s nuclear facility.
Pre-emptive war strikes me as reasonable and just, especially against actors who are clearly intent on attacking a peaceful nation and clearly developing the capacity to do so. I would extend this logic a step further: nations have the right to assassinate foreign leaders or military personnel directly involved in terrorist activity against that nation.
For example, if Iran is arming militia groups that are targeting Americans or Israelis, Iranian leaders then become legitimate targets. Those leaders have declared war by proxy against America and Israel, and can be treated accordingly.
This does not mean that I think it would be wise to attack Iranian leaders. It means that there is nothing immoral about killing leaders who are actively engaged in killing your military personnel and threatening your civilian population.
What is not moral is preventative war, the doctrine which the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq invasion (though they called it a pre-emptive action). Preventative war occurs when one nation strikes another nation based on the possibility of a future attack. Iraq posed no real threat to the United States. If wars could be justified based on no more than conjecture about potential threats, total chaos would ensue.
3. International Military Actions
Although the Iraq War did not meet the criterion for a pre-emptive war, what about Saddam’s crimes against humanity? Did those justify the overthrow of his regime? What about the atrocities of the Sudanese government? Or the Burmese or Zimbabwean governments?
The answers are far from clear.
Let’s start with the moral issues. If a ruler commits crimes against a country’s own people, e.g., mass murder and genocide, I believe there is nothing immoral in taking out that ruler and his or her party by force. There would be nothing wrong with taking out the Sudanese government or the Zimbabwean government or the Burmese junta; in fact, a strong case could be made that this would be the moral thing to do.
But there are major complications with carrying out such a policy. The first reflects our failure in Iraq: we removed a despot only to incite sectarian strife that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and devastated the country. There is little doubt that the Iraqis have suffered more over the past five years than if Saddam had remained in office (even though the country may be better off in the long run).
Another moral question is the extent to which the lives and treasure of one nation should be sacrificed for the benefit of another nation. Citizens everywhere are right to question whether their governments should send them to fight and die in other lands simply for humanitarian reasons.
Countries rarely base their military actions on humanitarian grounds. Instead they cite national security interests, which makes their actions palatable to the home-country public. This explains why America has been so involved in the Mideast (the oil-producing center of the world) and so relatively uninvolved in Africa (where the violence and atrocities have been even greater, but where U.S. economic interests are far less).
I’m personally not happy that America’s military involvement is usually limited only to places where there’s a perceived nexus between national security and economic goals. On the other hand, is it really the business of America to eradicate evil wherever we find it, whenever we find it? Even if we wanted to, even if we decided this was the moral thing to do, where would the resources come from?
Tough questions. Difficult choices. No easy answers. Even if international actions against oppressive regimes may be moral, it does not mean that they are either practical or should be a priority for a nation-state.
Jason Scorse