[Reader-list] Reasons that are Too Strong

[Jamie Dow]

I know some are bored with this stuff on reasons. But I am not content to be
a war artist. I want to develop and shape opinions that can affect how
people think and act. After all, it is principally by acting that we touch
one another's lives.

It seems to me that certain apparently plausible requirements or moral
statements that are made require rethinking. And the idea that a reason can
be "too strong" seems to me to be worth understanding.

I suppose that this is part of a project that I still see as being
worthwhile. It is the project of working out under what circumstances a war
would be just. Some medieval philosopher-theologians, with a line into
public policy in medieval Europe thought long and hard about this. If you
look at a politics or moral textbook on just wars, the impression is given
that no real advance has taken place since them. Which is a testimony to
them, perhaps, but I also think quite a sad reflection.

One of their conditions is that war be a last resort. This seems to me to be
widely believed among the anti-war movement. It seems to form a pillar of
the French and German positions, perhaps the Russian position, certainly
Hans Blix's position, and almost to be institutionalised into the
decision-making processes of the UN.

This "last resort" requirement also seems to me to be wrong. And wrong
because it's too strong a reason.

It might seem odd to say that a reason doesn't really count because it is
"too strong". Isn't what we want of reasons that they be strong? So how can
reasons be *too* strong? Well, what it amounts to is this: if a reason is
too strong, it will rule illegitimate things that we would intuitively think
are legitimate. So, the 'last resort' requirement is so stringent that World
War II would not meet it, the military action in Kosovo would not meet it,
nor any of the action in the Balkans, in fact I reckon that no war at all
would meet it. The last resort requirement is not usually thought of as an
exclusively pacifist requirement, but in reality it is a requirement for
just that - never going to war. There is always some hope - however
slender - that some alternative course of action might work. That was true
with Milosevic, and there were some who thought that on those grounds he
should not have been opposed with military means. It was also true with
1930s Germany.

So, sadly a little thinking is required, and the neat black and white
solutions turn out to be mirages. The requirement should be something like:
there must be no option which stands a reasonably foreseeable chance of
achieving the same or equivalent benefits as military action.

Now put like this, it brings into focus why the French and Germans said some
of the things they did. They said, for example, that 'inspections are
delivering results'. A strange thing to say, you might think. But if there
is deep down an intuition that in order to counter the arguments for
military action, you need to show a viable alternative (and this intuition
is surely correct - a fact oft forgotten), these hopelessly optimistic
statements about weapons inspections are actually vital for the French &
German position. If they are untrue, then their case collapses.


Another argument (and alarming how frequently this goes unnoticed) is that
war will involve the deaths of innocents. Now this could be taken in 2 ways:
(i) that the war involves killing innocents is an overriding reason against
war, one that cannot be outweighed by countervailing reasons.
or (ii) that war involves killing innocents is a strong reason against going
to war, but one that could be outweighed by large enough benefits of going
to war (or severe enough negative consequences of not going to war).
If taken as (i), then this reason would count against all wars. Joining WWII
would be a terrible crime on this basis. Again, the reason is just too
strong. It immediately entails pacifism (not just tends towards, but
immediately entails).
If taken as (ii), then this is something that all sides would agree. It
should not be stated in such a way as to imply somehow that those who are
pro-war have somehow missed the fact that in war innocents die, or that this
matters a great deal. Seen this way, it does not clinch the debate, so much
as starts it: it leads us to other questions to do with the predicted
benefits of going to war, and the predicted consequences of failing to do
so. And these are tricky weighings ... more difficult than the black & white
logic of some ... but isn't that just what you'd expect in this kind of
decision?
One of the questions that this reason brings into focus is to ask what level
of casualties you would expect from conflict. And that's quite a difficult
one as well. Today has brought some deaths among the military, and tonight's
bombardment almost certainly some civilian deaths. But last night's bombings
apparently brought no deaths (and that's by Iraqi sources), so it may be
that the death toll will not be of the nightmare proportions forecast by
some who like to talk of "daisycutters", and are cynical in this area that
technology could be making any positive difference (an irony really, since
this cynicism often comes from those who are very creative and cheerful
about the possibilities opened up by technology in other spheres). Of course
it is a risky business, since one has to try to predict the casualties when
taking a decision. One thing that, of course, makes the calculation easier
is if you have a high death toll as the cost of inaction - like several
lakhs of innocent Iraqis killed under the Ba'ath regime.


Another reason, often cited, that appears under this 'too strong' head, is
that war is not the way to establish desirable peaceful goals.
So, the thought is that "you can't establish democracy by tanks and down the
barrel of a gun". This seems to have a certain plausibility - you use one
means to establish a civil system, and then try to insist that in the
running of that civil system it should never be used. "Do as I say, not as I
do".
But a little thought suggests that this is too strong. Again, if it were
true, then probably it would never be right to adopt military means. Besides
being too strong, this claim just seems straightforwardly false. Some
counter examples immediately spring to mind - (ironically) the establishment
of the republic in France, the independence of the USA, and even beyond
establishment of good forms of government, it just does seem to be not that
uncommon for it to be necessary to adopt military or violent means sometimes
to defend good peacetime systems. I am not saying that there are no
conditions on this - you must, for example, have a good chance of achieving
the good purpose, and other means with good foreseeable chances of success
must be unavailable (both of which conditions are unfulfilled for, say,
Israeli military attacks on Palestinian areas, and for Palestinian suicide
bombings; but both of which seem to me to be fulfilled in the case of action
against Iraq).
I do not predict a long period of British/American military control when
this war is over. I suspect that there will be a swift move to a civilian
Iraqi administration. Others may deny this - and my remarks here suggest
that unless you deny this, another pillar of the anti-war position is
removed. Hence the move to over-describe the colonial ambitions of the US
(note the *over-* there, please!).


Ah, and I can't resist a pop at the "unreasonable veto" line.
It's a separate point, but there seems to be great objection to France's
veto threat being described as unreasonable. But it seems to me that,
certainly in the position as stated, it seems to be just right. The phrase
"whatever the circumstances" is what makes 'unreasonable' right.
Circumstances are one of the things that determine what is the right way to
choose. Circumstances are one of the things that affect what reasons apply,
and so on. So to say "we'll veto whatever the circumstances" is to say
"we'll veto whatever's the right way to choose", or "we'll veto, whatever
reasons apply to the decision". And to say *that* is to be closed to
reasons, or at least closed to reasons of a rather important sort. And we
have a word for this ... "unreasonable".

Sorry this is so long - these are my thoughts as they happened .... not
everyone thinks in that 'stream of consciousness' style! Or maybe I'm just
the wierd one!

Jamie