Attacking Iran would be Bad

Attacking Iran would be Bad

So Sarah Baxter of The Sunday Times ("Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran"), George Packer in The New Yorker ("Test Marketing") and Lance Mannion ("Oh what the heck, let's start a third war!") all say that the Bush administration may be considering a major strike against Iran.*

That is a Very Bad Idea.

"Bad" can mean a lot of things. It can mean wicked, unjust or morally suspect, as when we refer to villains as the "bad guys." It can mean unwise or foolish (bad bet, bad idea); broken or dysfunctional (bad sparkplug, bad title); inept (bad singer, bad fielder); erroneous (bad spelling, a bad note) or spoiled and rancid (the milk's gone bad). I mean all of those here.

The criteria of the just war tradition provide a useful framework for illustrating why I think a potential attack on Iran would be a Very Bad Idea. Here is a useable summary of those criteria from Paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor** on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

But so what? What does it matter what the Catholic catechism says? It's not legally binding, nor should it be. And even if, as is the case, the idea is not exclusively Catholic or even exclusively Christian, who cares about the moralizing and hand-wringing of a bunch of philosophers and theologians off on the sidelines somewhere?

Fair questions. I appreciate that the moral considerations of the just war tradition can seem wholly irrelevant or academic. The kind of people who really want to have a war are going to have one whether or not I, or even the last two popes, tell them it would be immoral. So let's set aside, for the moment, the moral aspect of these criteria and just consider the pragmatic contributions they may have to offer.

Those of us who subscribe to these criteria evaluated the proposed American-led invasion of Iraq before it happened and we found it to be, unambiguously, an unjust proposal. In terms of the version of the criteria summarized above, this war is 0-for-4.

But note in particular that final criterion above, the one usually referred to as "proportionality," summarized here as not producing "evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." The invasion of Iraq had no just cause, it was not a last resort and it did not suggest serious prospects of success, but to me the most important factor here was that it was disproportional -- it was likely to produce "evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." Here is what I wrote about that back on August 8, 2002:

The question of proportionality ... is bound up with the question of likely outcomes. ... Another way of putting these questions is this: Will this war likely make things better or worse?

Answering such a question involves more than merely applying abstract ethical principles. It involves weighing matters of fact and probability, prudence and judgement, learning from history to project our best guesses onto the future.

And my best guess is that ... the "reckless, ill-conceived and possibly disastrous" manner in which the Bush administration is pursuing this effort seems likely to make things worse. That's not a just war.

This is where, I think, the just war criteria make a pragmatic contribution. Heeding the principles of just war can keep you out of the quagmire. The reason for this is very simple: Unwinnable wars are disproportional and therefore, by definition, unjust.

So while I don't expect the Bush administration*** to care very much that the attack against Iran it may be considering would be another 0-for-4 -- that it would be unjust and immoral -- I do think they should be expected to care that it would be counterproductive and unwinnable. It would "produce evils and disorders graver than" those that exist now.

I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't terribly worried about graver evils (they think this makes them look "tough" and "manly"), but I'm desperately hoping that some of their deputies can persuade them to be concerned about graver disorders.

At the end of Packer's New Yorker piece, he adds this postscript:

Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

More of this, please. Fewer raging lunatics, please.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Baxter's Times article mostly just indicates the existence of contingency plans, which doesn't necessarily mean that even someone as recklessly bellicose as Dick Cheney is pondering implementing those plans. It's also possible that all of this talk is simply clumsy saber-rattling akin to Nixon's "Madman strategy."

** The first criterion, usually called "just cause," is nicely expressed here. The usual language of "defense against wrongful attack" is simply presumed as self-evident. If there is to be any possibility of a case for just war, this formulation assumes, then there must be an "aggressor." This doesn't necessarily mean that the good guys can never shoot first -- defense against imminent wrongful attack could still be a just cause. But defense against the fear of the potentiality of the possibility of wrongful attack-related program activities doesn't cut it.

*** My dad had a cartoon on the wall of his law office: Two cavemen are sitting on a rock and one is saying something like, "There's no point in making a law against eating people, because the kind of people who are going to eat other people are going to do it whether or not there's a law."

Comments

[Andy]

I have a bad feeling about this. I would love to be wrong, but I just have a Chertoffian "gut feeling" that we are going to have an air strike on Iran. God help us.

[the opoponax]

The only reason I can come up with that we might not invade Iran is that I'm not sure we have time to get the preliminary aspects of the invasion in before serious 2008 campaign season kicks in. The primaries begin in less than 6 months. Rubber stamping this war would be suicide for the Democrats, and can't be good for the Republicans, either. Anti-war sentiment (especially of the Holy Fuck What A Disaster This Is Turning Out To Be variety) is high. I mean, what, 25% of Americans still think invading Iraq was a good thing?

My big worry, really, is that we put this on hold for the elections, and then either Hillary or whatever idiotic crusade-waging Rethug picks right up where the Bush administration leaves off. The only potential president I can see averting war in Iran, in the longish term, is Barack Obama. And I'm not 100% sure on him, depending on what the general political makeup is when he takes office (I can definitely see the first black and liberal-ish democratic president feeling like he has to "get tough" on Iran to defend his ability to Be Presidential, or however the pundits will spin it).

[sarah]

"I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, 'bad'?"

...Okay, it probably wouldn't be that kind of bad. But pretty close.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Can I just butt in here for a moment and say that I don't believe in "just war." Even from a pragmatic standpoint. Because a pragmatic person doesn't really care about "just;" a pragmatic person would care about "necessary" wars. Just implies legal or justified or what have you; necessary works just as well, but without any moral baggage, because where I'm sitting, there is nothing moral about war.

I'm not hanging this out as troll-bait, but whenever people start talking about just wars, it makes my stomach churn.

[Jesurgislac]

Back last year I remember thinking, with real relief, that at least having a Democratic-controlled Congress made an attack on Iran unlikely. Somehow I thought Congress had some power in this system.

[Jos]

Somehow I thought Congress had some power in this system.

Don't you know the Democrats don't want to be seen as cowards by standing up against the Republicans?

[bad Jim]

We've gotten wound up so many times about an attack on Iran that I almost wonder whether it's a deliberate tactic. Why are they trying to distract us? Is it that, so long as we aren't bombing Iran, continuing to occupy Iraq isn't so bad?

I think that they actually do want to bomb Iran.

They argue that Iran supports the Taliban, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Hezbollah, Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army. Right, so the ayatollahs are backing Sunni extremists who hate them, Sunni extremists who hate them, a Shiite party in Lebanon participating in the national government and a Shiite Iraqi nationalist prone to quarrelling with another Shiite group with open Iranian support.

That their argument is incoherent doesn't mean that it's insincere. Why did we invade Iraq, anyway? Most of the answers one might offer (evil, Muslim, evil) would apply as easily to Iran.

It would be REALLY NICE if we were for once to refrain from raining death from above upon a nation which doesn't threaten us. I wish I could be optimistic.

[Rozzen]

Maybe they'll attack Iran hoping it will distract form Iraq, and especially will make the present mess even messier, thus pre-destroying whoever comes after them, which if that person is a Democrat will give them a Republican White House in 2012 ?

I don't imagine anyone attacking Iran at this point given the state the army is in anyway. Why do you people seem to think Hillary would attack Iran ? Has she said anything to that effect ?

[Rick]

I'm guessing Bush and Co. are pining for the good ol' days of Shock and Awe. Occupation is hard work.

[Jos]

Maybe they'll attack Iran hoping it will distract form Iraq

Well, it kind of worked for Afghanistan, didn't it?

[cjmr]

Back last year I remember thinking, with real relief, that at least having a Democratic-controlled Congress made an attack on Iran unlikely.

It makes a declared war unlikely--but when did that ever stop a President from attacking a country?

[the opoponax]

Why do you people seem to think Hillary would attack Iran ? Has she said anything to that effect ?

Well, she certainly seemed eager enough to go into Iraq. And she was the last of the major Democratic candidates to actually say that we need to bring the troops home. Except that I think she's still not saying how exactly this would happen and/or what the time frame might be like. She's also the most prone of all the candidates to get a hard-on for "tough" foreign policy stances. And as a woman (and of course as a dem), she'll face strong pressure from the right to prove herself on "defense" and not be tempted to get too into diplomacy.

[Rozzen]

"Maybe they'll attack Iran hoping it will distract form Iraq"

Well, it kind of worked for Afghanistan, didn't it?

That's exactly what I was thinking of :)
But that leaves the question, "you and whose army ?"
I mean, given the popularity of the war right now instituting a draft would be suicide. Imagine how it would be if there was actual personal risk involved ! (as opposed to risk to Our Brave Armed Forces)

[Ursula L]

At this point, would it be a just war to invade the US and take out Shrub? The whole thing seems to apply. The damage he's inflicted in his wars-to-date has been lasting, grave and certain, and all other means of putting an end to it have been impractical or ineffective. As for success, I don't know about you, but I'd welcome our new Canadian overlords. As far as producing greater evils - our entire armed forces are busy elsewhere and greatly depleted, reducing the overall chance of greater evil results. There's the election, but if he screws with that as he's screwed with the last two, what happens?

On a more serious note - I have a sick fear that the timing of an attack on Iran, if they're serious about it, would be to attack after the election and before the new president takes office. Keep the issue from harming Republican candidates by denying everything until after everyone's voted, then dump the mess on whomever takes over.

[cjmr's husband]

No, the time of maximum advantage for invading Iran is *before* next year's election, to force the Demon-crats to vote Against Our Troops.

[Rozzen]

Hey ! Remember this bit :
- there must be serious prospects of success;
The US may not have an army anymore but it still has the Bomb and lots of missiles...

Besides, it wouldn't be worth it. I mean, when you say "attack the US" I immediately think of this irish joke :
Two Irishmen are drinking in a pub in Dublin, talking politics, the sorry state of the country, etc. At some points one exclaims : "I know what ! We should attack the United States !"
The other one raises an eyebrow : "Why would you want to do that ?"
"It's simple ! We attack the United States, they beat the hell out of us, and then they'll be so sorry they'll spend millions of dollars to rebuild the country and we'll end up better than we were before ! Isn't that a great idea ?"
The other one sips his drink, thinking over the idea. Finally he says :
"But what if we won ?"

...

So my point is, do *you* see today's US spending millions to rebuild your country after you've been bombed to pieces ? (well, spending millions maybe. Only the idea is for it to go to actual rebuilding instead of Halliburton...)

[Scott]

Fred, you don't get to choose for yourself what wars we should get into. That would be anarchy. Just shut up and submit to The State. It knows best.

[GailVortex]

Geez, Scott--what's with all the animosity directed at Fred in your comments lately? Did he kick your cat or something?

[Jesurgislac]

"Lately"? Scott's been directing animosity at Fred since forever. He's our very own libertarian troll. Better ignored.

[cjmr's husband]

At least now we know that Scott unconditionally supports bombing Iran.

[cjmr]

I read the entire LB archive last weekend and it seems as if Scott 'jumped the shark' somewhere mid-2005.

[Jesurgislac]

If I cared, I'd wonder what happened to Scott mid-2005.

Why did you set out to read the whole LB archive including all the comment-threads?

[peatey]

this administration has learned repeatedly to 'shoot for the stars and land on the moon.' talk crazy nonsense about privatizing social security, invading iran, etc., just do enough to seem really crazy, then you get the 'less crazy' stuff you want. This is the oldest tactic in highschool policy debate: spreading your arguments on the opponent. the opponent can't possibly muster enough political capital to oppose all bad ideas.

The noncrazies must shoot down this crazy iran idea (for we cannot grant the administration their stars) but are still losing the moon landing.

[cjmr]

Why did you set out to read the whole LB archive including all the comment-threads?

Depression and anxiety over waiting for my biopsy results coupled with a perverse curiosity to discover who among the current commentors had been commenting the longest.

Jes, you've been commenting the longest.

And I finally got the results back yesterday and they were normal.

[Vermic]

Congrats, cjmr!

And I have a nasty suspicion that the administration wants to get us into Iran so they can pull the "stay the course" routine again in 2008. No matter how well (ha!) or poorly the war's going by then, it doesn't matter -- they'll still be able to say "Well, we're there now, so vote Republican and keep the wheels turning!" It's more useful (and easier) for them to start a war than to win it ... and here I seem to have veered uncomfortably into Orwellian territory.

[zzyzx]

Vermic - there is some definite truth to that. Starting a war is a lot easier than figuring out how to get out of it.

[Jesurgislac]

And I finally got the results back yesterday and they were normal.

I'm glad.

(I have? How weird.)

[the opoponax]

so they can pull the "stay the course" routine again in 2008.

I'm not sure they have time for that, though. I was at an anti-war march on Washington in like October of 2002. Putting Iran to a similar timeframe, we'd have to already be bombing to be anywhere near where we were in terms of Staying The Course as a 2004 election issue. And even then, it's a big gamble as to whether people would stand for it. At least with Iraq there was a somewhat articulatable rational, for instance "they definitely probably might have WMD's", and "we have to get rid of the evil tyrant." With Iran, literally all we have to go on is "brown! Muslim! funny hats! ohnoes!" We'd need a good 6 months to a year of constant spin for it not to be political suicide.

You also have to risk the fact that the Democrats might finally pull this one out and run on a "Say Yes To The Rule Of Law - Vote Dem" campaign.

[Matt]

I'm not sure I could see even this administration as being batshit insane enough to actually invade Iran. But I can definitely see a combination of "surgical" airstrikes and cruise missiles to attmept to limit their interference in Iraq and nuclear ambitions.

That's still a Very Bad Idea.

And unfortunately, not necessarily one that would need congressional approval. Unless I'm wrong, didn't the Clinton administration launch "surgical" airstrikes and cruise missile attacks in the Middle East without the approval of Congress?

[Armando]

"** The first criterion, usually called "just cause," is nicely expressed here. The usual language of "defense against wrongful attack" is simply presumed as self-evident. If there is to be any possibility of a case for just war, this formulation assumes, then there must be an "aggressor." This doesn't necessarily mean that the good guys can never shoot first -- defense against imminent wrongful attack could still be a just cause. But defense against the fear of the potentiality of the possibility of wrongful attack-related program activities doesn't cut it. "

The thing is that in this case, as with Iraq, _WE_ would be the agressors. That would make _US_ the BAD GUYS.

We haven't been the "good guys" since around October, 2001. "God bless 'merica" indeed.

[cjmr]

Unless I'm wrong, didn't the Clinton administration launch "surgical" airstrikes and cruise missile attacks in the Middle East without the approval of Congress?

Yeah. And Reagan invaded Grenada. In fact, Congress never issued declarations of war against Korea or Vietnam, either, and those were not 'surgical strikes'.

There's plenty of abusing the position of Commander in Chief to go around.

[cjmr's husband]

In fact, Congress never issued declarations of war against Korea or Vietnam, either

Or Iraq, for that matter.

[Michele]

Rozzen: I mean, when you say "attack the US" I immediately think of this irish joke :

Kind of like "The Mouse That Roared"?

[Jos]

At least now we know that Scott unconditionally supports bombing Iran.

Wouldn't that be Submitting To The State (well... Bush)? I thought libertarians were against that kind of thing.

[wintermute]

At least with Iraq there was a somewhat articulatable rational, for instance "they definitely probably might have WMD's", and "we have to get rid of the evil tyrant." With Iran, literally all we have to go on is "brown! Muslim! funny hats! ohnoes!"

Well, Iran has been taking the IAEA seals off their nuclear reactors, and making noises about re-starting their nuclear energy program, which by a shocking co-incidence, would also provide them with weapons-grade plutonium. I think this has mostly been an attempt to encourage the community of nations to give them more foreign aid so they don't need to do this, but it's still far more reason than there ever was for Iraq. Which is to say, it's a tiny, insignificant fraction of a reason.

[damnedyankee]

I thought libertarians were against that kind of thing.

Scott attempts irony, methinks. No doubt when he oozes back in here he'll turn around his previous statement into some strained argument about health care, Social Security, or why the government is stealing his tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans.

[Jeff]

Dang, Michele stole my reply. Oh well, you can never have too many recommendations for tMtR (movie is good, book is slightly better).

[Jeff]

Congrats to cjmr and Riverbend. Good news on both counts.

[Ian]

Imperial Japan tried a surgical strike on the American navy once, no doubt considering that fleet a threat to their interests, a threat worth preempting.

It's easier to get into a war than out of one.

[damnedyankee]

Well, Iran has been taking the IAEA seals off their nuclear reactors, and making noises about re-starting their nuclear energy program, which by a shocking co-incidence, would also provide them with weapons-grade plutonium.

You mean like how Saddam was intent on kickstarting his own nuclear program before we invaded Iraq? The intrepid reportage of Judy Miller and her source, Anonymous Guy in a Baseball Cap?

Yes, Iran has nuclear facilities, but that's not the whole story:

SPIEGEL: But it was the Iranian regime that clearly lied and deceived the West in recent years when it came to its nuclear program. Doesn't Tehran have to accept the offer without conditions and stop its uranium enrichment activities?

ElBaradei: There is no other choice. To our knowledge, however, the Iranians have not accelerated their nuclear research program, which would be a sign of their developing a nuclear program for military use. There are apparently competing political directions in Tehran. And there are many shades of gray.

[Jeff Weskamp]

Don't forget Joel Rosenberg's new book Epicenter, which openly states that America must attack Iran in order to initiate the blessed End Times.

[Jeff]

It's important to note that there's no such thing a a "surgical strike" on Iran. If we bomb any building, any structure, they will (rightly) consider it an act of war and will send all its troops into Iraq. It could possibly convince Syria to join it. If we think that Iranian "involvement" is bad now (and what there is is fairly questionable), it will be 1000 times worse if we attack Iran in ANY way.

Not that this would stop the sociopaths involved, of course.

[the opoponax]

making noises about re-starting their nuclear energy program

Yeah. Noises that are coming from Ahmedinajad, who is little more than a figurehead, prancing around telling the Iranian people whatever will whip them into shape so they don't purge the radical clerics out of office once and for all.

Do we have any reason to believe ANYTHING that man says is more than just talk? Before the nuclear crap, his big claim to fame was speaking at Holocaust Denial rallies.

[Rozzen]

"Rozzen: I mean, when you say "attack the US" I immediately think of this irish joke :"

Kind of like "The Mouse That Roared"?

Interesting ! The story's been making the rounds apparently ^^

[Ursula L]

Another odd idea that hit me after reading this...

One of the major factors in getting stability in Iraq is getting Iran to support stability, rather than funding and arming various factions within Iraq.

Under normal circumstances, Iran would prefer stability in Iraq, because of the danger of instability spilling over the border, and all the other problems that come from living next door to a civil war.

But, Iran doesn't want the US to be able to use Iraq as a staging area for attacking/invading Iran. That's a greater danger to them than instability in Iraq.

So, as long as the US threatens Iran, it undermines the goal of stability in Iraq, by giving Iran an incentive to keep the US bogged down.

With this new round of saber-rattling, I'm lead to wonder if the administration is trying to create more chaos in Iraq right now, and if so, why? Perhaps an excuse to go after Iran, not for nuclear weapons, but to try and cut off aid to Iraq, similar to the incursions into Laos and Cambodia during Vietnam?

[Rozzen]

"Perhaps an excuse to go after Iran, not for nuclear weapons, but to try and cut off aid to Iraq, similar to the incursions into Laos and Cambodia during Vietnam?
All your post seems sensible, except for this last part here. They threaten Iran, thus making it promote chaos in Iraq where it would otherwise stabilise it, in order to keep it from promoting chaos in Iraq ?
That makes no sense. So either you're wrong in your basic analysis of Iran's actions, or they're morons, or they want to attack Iran for another reason.

The two first options both make a lot of sense, but for some reason I find the last one more attractive... I didn't think I was a conspiracy theorist !

Anyway in the final analysis I'd agree with Opoponax : they just don't have time to do that ! (also, no army, but I've said that before :) ) (unless it's a UN operation, but in that case it would happen long after Bush got out, and it's less likely to be a conspiracy thing)

[damnedyankee]

As near as I can tell, Rozzen, they want to attack Iran because... they want to attack Iran. "Real men go to Teheran" and all of that crap. Their foriegn policy toolbox only contains a hammer, therefore any potential obstacles look remarkably like nails.

Of course, the next question is "you and what army?" But I don't think they've worked that out. Or they have, and we're all really not going to like the answer.

[Ursula L]

They threaten Iran, thus making it promote chaos in Iraq where it would otherwise stabilise it, in order to keep it from promoting chaos in Iraq ?

No, they threaten Iran to keep it promoting instability in Iraq so they can attack Iran while calling it part of the Iraq mission. This would give them a fig leaf to avoid actually saying they're going to go after Iran until it was all done - they can call it funding for promoting stability in Iraq, not funding to attack Iran.

It shifts their answer to any criticism from "How can you not be for stopping Iran?" to "How can you not be for helping stabilize Iraq?"

[Rozzen]

As near as I can tell, Rozzen, they want to attack Iran because... they want to attack Iran.
It does look that way doesn't it ? I try to think the world doesn't work that way and that they must have a reason, but...

Or they have, and we're all really not going to like the answer.
Actually when you think of it, if they're going to attack Iran in the time they have left they might as well reinstate a draft while they're at it ! It's not like they're running for reelection or anything...
I really can't see that happening though.

Does Congress have a say ? Because they're running for reelection.

[damnedyankee]

Does Congress have a say ?

Not so far...