I can certainly agree with Mr. Zmirak's concern about an agressive foreign policy, especially one too ready to intervene militarily. There definitively is a serious moral issue here that should not be underestimated. At the same time, as soon as I remember Obama's fanatical support of legal abortion, I know that I cannot in good conscience vote for him.
In the case of the war in Iraq, I was against an intervention, since I always figured that it's easier to take things apart than put them back together. Once the US intervened, I think that it put us in a different moral situation. If a guy takes advantage of a girl and gets her pregnant, he should at least take responsibility for his action and help her raise the child or put it up for adoption. If he abandons her or forces her to have an abortion, he adds sin to sin. Similary, however wrong it may have been to intervene in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to help stabilize the country. The progress since last year is encouraging but not irreversible. I pray that there will be true peace for Iraq.

To equate "bedroom morality" such as contraception and abortion with discerning when war is just seems to be a stretch - a big stretch. There are no occasions when abortion, sleeping with someone who is not your wife or deliberately interrupting the expected effects of sexual intercourse are permissable. On the other hand, the moral aspects of war are a matter that require the exercise of judgement by a well-formed conscience.

Excellent piece. I shall henceforth refer to it "The Must Read Article for American Conservative Catholics That Will Unquestionably Fall on Deaf Ears."

We patriots don't want to hear about any alleged ignominy occurring under the banner of Red, White & Blue. It's sacrilege, you know.

The difference between barbarians at the gate and today is NUKES. The difference between women being forced to stay home and weave the family's cloth and today is genocidal levels of abortion.

Da Rules were made during an earlier time, yes, but had they been followed- even, indeed, gotten a hat-tip, perhaps today we wouldn't be facing the kind of irreversible damage that a global nuclear conflagration would bring about.

Yes, we can't force our Constitution on anyone, but it needs to be said that the alternatives, dictatorship, have been virtually the only type of government throughout human history. We are throwing away this 'new experiment'- the one that brought more people into a comfortable living, than ANY dictatorship ever did and ever will, and we are exchanging that for a global fascism, at the hands of our 'friendly president' and cronies of both parties.

Rewriting the Just War Doctrine, based on a war that was propagated by lies is CLEARLY the wrong basis for revisiting that standard. Until the entire truth about this war comes out, it would be unwise to defame the Just War Doctrine. It is proving itself to be an exceptionally wise measure against every form of foreign affair and as a sane basis for diplomacy in a world gone mad.

While interesting and entertaining, I find this post an unhelpful minimization of things that can help us find our way- NOBODY is offering ANY solution to the things that MUST BE SOLVED IMMEDIATELY. To dissemble things that may be of great help and wisdom at this time condemns us and our children to a dire future. Perhaps rather we can look to see what value there IS in those things before we decide to throw them out.

It is only fair, when criticizing another's decisions after-the-fact, to propose alternative decisions which:

(a.) You can demonstrate to be superior to the actions that were taken; and,

(b.) Could have plausibly been known to be superior to the actions that were taken given the information that was available to the persons making the decisions at the time.

Re: the resumption of hostilities with Iraq, Douglas Feith's War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism is instructive. At the time, the "knowledge" of U.S. decision-makers included:

- There had never been an armistice between the U.S. and Iraq since the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, only a conditional cease-fire;
- Saddam had unilaterally violated the cease-fire agreement several hundreds of times, both through hostile acts, the attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush, and violations of the U.N. resolutions required by the agreement;
- Saddam had friendly relations with terrorists and assisted them with funding and training grounds and permitting them to reside in Iraq;
- Saddam had reconstitutable WMD programs (knowledgeable personnel and dual-use technology);
- Saddam had missiles for delivering WMD, and some had ranges prohibited by the cease-fire and associated U.N. resolutions;
- The inspections regime was the only thing keeping Saddam from reconstituting a significant arsenal of conventional and ABC weaponry;
- Saddam bought U.N. security council support from France, Germany, Russia with payoffs to European government ministers using the Oil for Food program;
- Saddam's virtual ownership of votes in the Security Council meant that inspections regime was probably months from ending;
- Saddam was believed to have stockpiles of chem-/bio-weapons, and to have pursued fissile material in Africa.

Of these, only the last item was found to be false after the U.S. invaded. Prior to 2003, it was believed by every major intel. agency including U.N. opponents of the invasion, including Britain (who were the source of the African fissile materials info), France, Germany, Russia, and Israel.

I don't contest the Church's just war doctrine. I do not here contest the notion that ending the cease-fire only after 12 years of violations, instead of, say, 12 hours, was a bad move.

I certainly don't contest the notion that insufficient ground-forces were sent to keep order post-war, and that the U.S. turned over governance to Iraqis too slowly, giving time for resentment to turn into insurgency. Those two decisions, in conjunction with Iranian and AQI actions, are probably the sole reasons that deaths in Iraq since 2003 are higher than Saddam's usual annual death toll of political and tribal enemies (averaging tens of thousands).

I do, however, contest the notion that not resuming hostilities was the obvious right move given the information we had at the time; and that the Bush admin. merits the kind of vituperation it has received for making that call; and that the bumper-sticker slogans of the paranoid left ("Bush lied, people died", "blood for oil", etc.) have any relationship to the reality of the decisions involved.

Folks with that mentality are as incompetent to soberly evaluate such decisions as a latter-day devotee of Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, to broker peace talks in Israel.

This article took an important first step in clarifying aspects of the Church's teaching on war but left the grave importance of other things relatively under emphasized - namely, the weight that the church insists one "bedroom" issue should play in our voting decisions. Unfortunately, many times we are placed between a rock and a hard place when it comes to voting for either of the major American political parties. Still, the Church has characterized abortion as the greatest injustice of our time and 40 million infants have died since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. They seriuosly debate witholding or do withold Holy Communion from politicians who actively advocate a pro-life position. I think it is important that this issue be duly emphasized whenever we discuss church ethics and our political tendencies. Few Catholics I know vote Republican because they are war hungry or don't understand just war theory; more do it in hopes of having Supreme Court justices appointed that will help end the three decade genocide going on in our nation.

I know I'm nitpicking here, but the reference to a certain blog about the cafeteria being closed is a misnomer. We've come to find out that the certain blogger is a heterodox and is spreading heresy concerning Church doctrine.

Just thought you should know since you made a reference to it which it no longer deserves.

It is very illuminating. Ike had people all around him suggesting "The Bomb" for every military crisis. Ike thought that was insanity, and charted a different course. Funny, America was more threatened in the 50s than today, and yet Eisenhower managed to come up with balanced budgets, trimming of Defense spending, avoiding escalation in Korea and World War III. Not to say his presidency was perfect (far from it, on several issues Eisenhower waffled when he should have been firm, for instance on Segregation), but Ike proved that:

-One need not use the Atomic Bomb to get results
-One need not spend your country into oblivion to get results and defend the country
-Talking to your Foes doesn't mean you're "weak."
-Domestic Infrastructure is important (Interstate)

The Hawks keep telling us we need to "read history." Well, they should be careful about that...even Ronald Reagan wasn't always "Reagan-esque."

Bravo to R.C. for a rational and very specific response.

I'd like to add one point in support of US actions in Iraq. The US took action with conventional arms to prevent what it believed would be an unconventional attack in the future. It did so in a way that minimized civilian casualties using guided munitions when going against targets in populated areas. Thus it makes an additional argument for "proportionality."

It seems to me the comment about ""national greatness conservatism" -- the muscular, interventionist foreign policy championed by Sen. John McCain" is an exaggeration.

Bravo to A. Kelly

I consider the murder of 3,600 babies by their mothers every day an overwhelming evil, more important than war, the economy and the price of gas, same sex marriage, and the environment all added together. It alone will determine my vote and financial support. To do anything else is to be complicit in this greatest of all evils in the history of mankind.

To those who say war can *sometimes* be justified, and thus it is different than abortion, realize that the seriousness of abortion creates a threshold.

The only bullet point I can't come up with is a legitimate authority. It is grave, negotiations have failed, the consequences of probably fewer bombs than will be dropped in Iraq today ending it ... etc. Perhaps B16 will do something as the Vatican is probably a state for the purpose.

So turn this around. Is any "islamofascist" terror whatever threat capable of destroying more innocent life than abortion in the 7 years since 9/11? Can they be addressed with less difficulty than removing less than a thousand people and clinics? Have we tried the same 30 years of counseling and prayer and other "negotiations" which we will never quite admit have failed? Don't we just wait until they die - either the supreme oligarchs or Ben Laden?

There is no moral equivalence, yet our reaction to the holocaust down the street and the fearful shadows on the other side of the world are completely out of proportion and reversed.

Ask when it would be legitimate to assassinate an abortionist or bomb a clinic.

For a war to be just, or more specifically the assassination and bombing which will occur, the threat or actual destruction would have to be equal or more grave.

And the standard for leaders is prudential judgment, not prejudice, convenience, or whims. That means reason. And if you specifically decide to refuse to stop a local holocaust, you can't reason that remote threats which might be (by proportion) inconveniences can be addressed with violence.

Can I get a side order of straw men to go with my moral equivalence entree?

I think John's overall point -- that Catholics aren't free to either pick and choose their doctrines or apply them lazily -- could have been made a wee bit better.

For those who don't have access to a copy of War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, or patience to read such a tome, I recommend this excellent five-part interview with the author, Douglas Feith:

#1: http://tinyurl.com/3knp76
#2: http://tinyurl.com/4vk6m9
#3: http://tinyurl.com/46ktnq
#4: http://tinyurl.com/5c9qox
#5: http://tinyurl.com/5tctgh

If you want to understand the events of the last five or six years pertaining to Iraq, this interview is very worth your listening time.

Ladies and Gents,
Never said it was morally permissible to vote for Obama.
Never equated the abortion issue with war (the subject I brought up was liberals who dissent on birth control).
Never mentioned "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," either. "R.C." must have some strange issues with our Jewish brethren if he's reading political porn like that.
The point of worrying about McCain is not what he would do with Iraq; how to clean up that mess is a point of prudence about which we are free to disagree.
What worries me about McCain (apart from the fact that according to Rick Santorum he backstabs prolifers every chance he gets, and hence would probably appoint someone like Harriet Myers to the Court) is this: What NEW, unjust and useless wars will he launch using the propaganda machine that lied us into Iraq? Will the same empty suits who lulled us into that war succeed in doing so again? At what point does it become sinful to support such a war? Ever heard of VINCIBLE ignorance?

After such a reasonable piece, to use such an unreasonable reading of what I said? And follow it up with an ad hominem? You're better than that, sir!

Everyone reading this thread, I ask you: Was this...



...called for?

I was very precise, and I tried to be gracious at the same time.

In so far as I made an argument, it was not against what you were saying, but the way that those who agree with your defense of the Just War Doctrine (a doctrine I support!) occasionally defend it in a churlish and unjust way, with a complete absence of Christian charity, and embracing that same paranoid style in politics that had the Clintons murdering Vince Foster.

It was against such folks that I intended a bit of a verbal slap; it never occurred to me that -- having written such a sober-minded article -- you could include yourself in their group.

Deep breath...count to ten...

That seems to be the next target of choice for the same jackasses who told us that Iraq would be a cakewalk, that we would be greeted as liberators, the oil money would pay for the war, and long stream of BS that flowed from this Adminstration in 02-03. Israel's belligerence towards Iran is a case in point. They bluster and threaten, and escalate the situation. Iran isn't doing anything the Soviets didn't do during the Cold War....they're fighting a "proxy war" in Iraq...of course they are! The Soviets did the same thing, and we didn't unleash our war machine on them. I pray...pray, that our government yanks the Israelis by the collar and tell them to simmer down...or give them a nice letter stating our Air Force will intercept their planes should they attempt something stupid like invade Iraqi Airspace. If they want to go to war with Iran, let them go at it alone. I personally am tired of the implied nuclear blackmail we get from Israel (you have to help protect us, otherwise we'll use our arsenal). We need to be seeking Detente with Iran, not War. We talked to the Soviets, and the Chinese...because we had to. Iran is a regional power, one much larger than Iraq, and much smarter. a Surgical Strike will not destroy their Nuclear program. The Shias in Iraq would rise up against such a move, destroying any and all progress we've made. It would be the end of everything. Lunacy.

RE: R.C.
Every time someone criticizes neoconservative ideas, critics find some way to insinuate that they are anti-Semites, whether or not there is any ground for that accusation whatsoever. Your post critiquing my presentation of Church teaching, which mirrors the prudential judgments of the Holy See during the run-up to BOTH Gulf wars, brought in an entirely irrelevant group of people--fanatical, anti-American leftists--and then for good measure the hateful zealots who peddle forgeries like the "Protocols." By throwing them in, you were consciously or unconsciously engaging in the same kind of smear.
But I'm churlish and uncharitable because I didn't let you get away with it.

Fech!

I'm no great fan of McCain, but I did have problems with this piece. No, you may not have said it was morally permissable to vote for Obama, but you made no negative remarks about his very clear anti-Catholic stands on the "bedroom" issues: abortion, as well as Homosexual practice, another grave evil according to the Church, etc... yet you made a point of naming McCain for things that are not nearly so clear cut. Your very evident attack on McCain, the only other viable candidate at this point, is enough to make one question. You compound the impression of possible pro-Obama bias with statements like, "...while we load our trays with red meat mandates that mostly center on the bedroom," as if we are giving these issues too much weight, when we are told we must. Abortion is non-negotiable and there are no questions that must be answered to determine its unjust nature, as opposed to war.

So, really, this does read like a hit on McCain, which, unless you are suggesting we don't vote at all, or cast a protest vote, thereby assuring Obama wins, makes it sound rather pro-Obama. Perhaps if it had been more balanced with as clear condemnation of Obama on "bedroom" as there is for McCain on "war", it would have been somewhat less problematic.

I took the article as skewering the idea that being Catholic necessitates a Republican vote. It doesn't.

Dear Pamela,
I'm sorry if this confusion arose. My assignment from the editor was to analyze McCain's "National Greatness Conservatism" from a Catholic perspective--not to endorse a candidate. To be clear, I think it usually mortally sinful to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when others are available who aren't. Since Ron Paul won't be on the ballot, I'm voting for Bob Barr. I won't "waste" my vote on a candidate whom I think gravely violates Church teaching in either direction.
For more on this, I can offer an article I wrote some months ago here: http://tinyurl.com/6k7w3o

Perhaps you'll find it interesting. Best Wishes!

Excellent piece. And one of the biggest offenders in the Catholic neocon movement is First Things magazine, which has become a Trojan Horse. First Things pretends to preach Catholic values while justifying Israel's wars, maybe because they are beholden to Jewish funding. Father Neuhaus is a good man, but does he know what he is doing? Is he trying to destroy the Catholic Church?

I don't think it's responsible to accuse prominent men of apparent good will, such as Father Neuhaus, of being bought and paid for. I don't think neoconservatives are disloyal to this country, or (specifically) that Jewish neocons are consciously putting Israel first. Rather, the ideology of American interventionism, which arose in the 1890s with Teddy Roosevelt, finds in Israel a convenient cat's paw for the region--which the U.S. must dominate, because we must micromanage the world, because we are the earthly incarnation of virtue. Some factions in Israel, and their American supporters, are happy to work in synergy with this ideology. The results benefit neither country, nor the cause of peace.

I don't think it's responsible to accuse prominent men of apparent good will, such as Father Neuhaus, of being bought and paid for. I don't think neoconservatives are disloyal to this country, or (specifically) that Jewish neocons are consciously putting Israel first. Rather, the ideology of American interventionism, which arose in the 1890s with Teddy Roosevelt, finds in Israel a convenient cat's paw for the region--which the U.S. must dominate, because we must micromanage the world, because we are the earthly incarnation of virtue. Some factions in Israel, and their American supporters, are happy to work in synergy with this ideology. The results benefit neither country, nor the cause of peace.

If you really believe they should continue to go without saying, I'd suggest that you would be surprised at the number of voters who know very little about Obama. Perhaps you are assuming that everyone who reads this reads up a lot, and I'm sure the readers here are more informed than the average voter on the street. However, if this is the type information they are reading, perhaps they are not as well informed as they should be, as again, it is somewhat slanted. At any rate, I have informed more than a few of my Catholic friends of Obama's horrific record on abortion to their complete astonishment. They see fellow Catholics sitting on the Social Justice Committe with their Obama buttons on, and assume he must be okay. Personally, I don't really think his faults should go without being said every chance we get.

As far as requiring a Republican vote goes, of course it isn't a requirement for Catholics. I do not vote for a party and no one should. I vote for the person who is most consistent with Catholic teaching according to the guidelines set by the Pope and the USCCB. Those guidelines tell me abortion is of utmost importance in that decision. This article, whether intentional or not, downplays that importance.

Great post and reply to comments.

Glad to see John Zmirak on Insidecatholic.com

Ditto. Although I have reservations about this column (not so much its conclusion, but rather the way it was reached), I'm a huge fan of Mr. Zmirak's books and hope he becomes a regular at Inside Catholic.

I enjoyed the humor contained in your remarks and the fact that people are generally bound to take themselves to seriously. Mentioning that Catholic teaching has been fermenting for over two thousand years and should e given great respect was also an excellent point. I will not rehash what others have said both pro and con about the war or about the weaknesses of your piece. I will tell a short story and then provide a simple argument for supporting my senator from Arizona.

I had a client who escaped from Iraq after the first Gulf War after the Allies decided not to go forward into Iraq and established the cease fire. My client and members of his family along with a number of people in their part of the city, thought that the country would soon be liberated and smuggled in American flags. When the liberation did not occur, they were targets and had to leave. The stories of torture and pain that he provided were not very pleasant to say the least. After 9-11 and the escalation of hostilities with Iraq, I asked him what would be the benefit of the invasion. I was concerned that
the Chaldean Catholic population might be in greater risk. He told me that the people were so weary of the 14 years of war with Iran, of the cruelty of the Saddam regime, that the people would embrace our actions. He was partly right. Human nature being what it is, the Iraqis were happy to have Saddam gone and unhappy to have Americans in their land. Yet they also realized that without our presence the slaughter among tribes and families settling scores would have been worse. His read - overall a better thing that it happened. But then again all of this is in hindsight.

Now regarding McCain. He is pro-life and will not choose a Myers type. Sam Brownback and Manny Miranda and others are and will advise him on the judge issue. He has stated his support for the cause. His 25 year voting record is concrete evidence of his pro-life commitment. None of the minor candidates is qualified or has a chance. Bob Barr is a joke. Unless one votes for McCain, one s effectively supporting and voting for Obama.

Now I realize John, that nothing in your article directed anyone to vote for Obama. Further I enjoyed the spirit of your article and the points it attempted to make. But I would recommend that you do further prayerful thinking on the idea of voting for Bob Barr or any third party candidate.

I look forward to more witty and thoughtful articles inthe future.

1. ". . . using the propaganda machine that lied us into Iraq"--The propaganda is "Bush lied, people died." It's been repeated so often that many, if not most, people now believe it. As R.C. and Douglas Feith have shown, it isn't true.

2. Even the pope has pointed out that since the US in in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to try to improve the situation there. There's a reason that few headlines now refer to Iraq: the situation is far better now, so the news from Iraq won't help the news media's candidate of choice so much.

3. Rather, the ideology of American interventionism, which arose in the 1890s with Teddy Roosevelt, finds in Israel a convenient cat's paw for the region--which the U.S. must dominate, because we must micromanage the world, because we are the earthly incarnation of virtue. Sheesh--this thought has honestly never, ever crossed my mind, and I think I'm probably one of the Catholic conservatives that Mr. Zmirak refers to with such scorn. I've never, ever seen this kind of idea in First Things, either. I think this argument may contain a straw man, though I should make allowances for sarcasm.

Mr. Zmirak, I enjoyed your book, by the way! I am quite eager to have some framboise with vanilla ice cream and raspberries.

John,



I am bewildered to think that you can somehow extract such a meaning from my words, in what I intended as a friendly, reasoned post. They simply can't be justly interpreted that way.

I said, in relevant part:
(1.) There are people who see a fascist dictator in every (or, in G.W.) Bush;
(2.) Such persons are similar (in their ability to distinguish probable fact from wild fantasy) to those right-wing loons who accused Bill & Hill of murdering Vince Foster.
(3.) I wouldn't want such folks in the U.S. making judgments about U.S. foreign policy, any more than I would want their Middle-Eastern equivalents (e.g. the Arabs who think Protocols... is actually true) making judgments about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

I could easily have used another example, such as "I wouldn't want NASA run by the conspiracy theorists who think the moon-landing was filmed on a Hollywood sound stage." Would you have then assumed I thought you were one of those?

The use of such an example was so utterly disconnected from making any positive assertion about you that I'm astonished you could make such a leap.

It reminds me of McCain's (nearly my least-favorite Republican in the world, incidentally) speech criticizing "appeasement," naming only Chamberlain as example. Obama, hilariously, immediately owned the label by reacting as if McCain was criticizing him. (Talk about an unforced error.)

I fully expected you, John, to say, "Gee, yeah, I agree, R.C.; I hate it when those paranoid types make those of us who want to rationally implement the Just War Doctrine look bad by association."

So why didn't you? (Your initial article certainly didn't suggest you were that type.)



Where? How? I criticized a completely different group of folks. I was joining a conversation consisting, at that point, of Bookmark, Deacon Ed, and Steve, in order to make a point not yet made: That while one can disagree with the decision, the notion that it was utterly idiotic given the information available at the time is unrealistic.

Now perhaps you disagree with that, John. But I didn't know that; you hadn't said so.



With which I agreed, with respect to the second, and not the first.



Nope. Sorry. I wouldn't smear people with whom I largely agree, not even when arguing a topic about which I partly disagree.



No. You're not (intrinsically) churlish and uncharitable. You've only acted churlishly and uncharitably when, after misunderstanding my post and failing to correctly perceive the friendly intent of a fellow follower of Christ, you knifed me in the back with an ad-hominem.

You reflexively thought the worst of me, when, up until that point, I'd assumed the best of you.

John,

By the way, I agree with you in another way: In the abstract, Bob Barr is the best candidate.

I am not going to vote for Barr like you are. But that is only because I think I am morally compelled to vote strategically against the candidate I dislike most (Obama), by voting for the fellow most likely to beat him (McCain).

That (whether it is better to vote strategically or for the candidate who most reflects your values, even if he's utterly incapable of winning) is a judgment call upon which reasonable people, and even reasonable Catholics, can disagree.

And, frankly, if McCain does one more thing to alienate me, I may vote for Barr after all. I suspect I'm not the only member of the "conservative base" who feels he's repeatedly had to wipe McCain's spit off his face.

But what can one say? It's a fallen world, and (apart from the choice to receive God's grace) there are no important choices that aren't a near-thing mixture of costs, benefits, and unknowns. Sometimes it's a choice for the lesser of several evils.

I guess y'reasons it out the best y'can, and then y'makes yer bets an' y'takes yer chances.

Dear Mr. Jakubczyk,

I think what you are missing is that by voting for McCain, you are taking votes away from Barr, thus helping to ensure that Obama wins the election.

Paul:



Rhetorically lever, sir. Witty in the Chestertonian way of an unexpected paradox or reversal of roles.

But, I fear, it is only rhetorical. At the moment, Barr's numbers are less even than those of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, who also aren't going to be president any time soon.

I will of course continue to say "Bob Barr" to every telephone pollster who calls. (I've been called twice.) I hope that will help his numbers, and thereby encourage McCain not to take conservatives for granted.

But unless the numbers change dramatically, the ratio of McCain's support to Barr's will still, in November, be what it is now: Something like ten-to-one. And if that's the case, it's only reasonable, with numbers like that, to regard a vote for Barr as splitting McCain's vote, not vice-versa.

I saw some bumper stickers that summed it up:

#3: "I love my country more than I hate John McCain"

#2: "McCain: Vote for the douchebag. It's important."

...and my favorite,

#1: "McCain in '08: Oh, well, what the hell."

(Apologies for slightly off-color language.)

For those who believe that Iraq was a just war, please lobby for an invasion of the Philippines also to liberate the people there.

R.C.'s specious analysis of the just war argument with respect to Iraq demonstrates Zmirak's point perfectly.

Its tortured, positivistic logic resembles nothing so much as the piling up of plausible seeming claims for annulment while the parties shack up with their future concubines.

First of all, the notion that a right to war could perdure through a cease-fire lasting a decade is ludicrous. Again JWD is not a pretext for launching war. Instead, it carefully and completely circumscribes the only conditions under which war can licitly be prosecuted.

If there is a 10 year ceasefire during which negociation are taking place, then quite obviously the war fails "last resort" criteria, since the alternative is currently being engaged in.

Moreover, as people with much more knowledge of the situation than R.C. or even G.W.B. have, like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix--the negociations were productive.

Finally, the fact the R.C. can't give the single Casus Belli, and let it stand or fail on its merits, but instead must once again throw heaps of crap against the wall, sometimes contradictory crap, underscores the fact that when the Bush Administration had the chance, and in fact the solemn duty of making its best case for war--Colin Powell before the UN--it did the same thing, and continued to do so in the months following--throwing up easily discreditable, specious pretexts--mobile weapons labs, drone laden ship, aluminum tubes entirely unsuitable for centrifuge use. . . . which it was easy AT THE TIME to refute, in the hopes that all the Mushroom Cloud smoke and Hamberg Meetings with Atta obfuscation would distract from the fact that they knew, at the time, it was a war of choice.

There is no one more guilty of this--as the DOD's investigator has shown--than Douglas Feith. The fact R.C. cites this shameful figure is the ultimate refutation of his argument.

Dear John and Al,

Your article was thought-provoking, however, your slam against the French to produce a chuckle is hurtful. I am so tired of people saying, "Excuse my French," when they swear. I have never sworn, yet these people who swear all day long are saying they're French. Other people, like this author say, "What can you expect, "He's French."

For those of you who are thinking, "lighten up," I'm sorry. You have people disrespecting your ethnic heritage all the time, you start resenting it. I and all of the French deserve an apology. It would also be nice if you would cease and desist from future attacks.

Sincerely,

Gisele Cyr

I have no problem with an article devoted to the analysis of one aspect of one candidate's political world view - as you said: that was your assignment, so I didn't read it as a subliminal "Vote Obama" message or as a hit piece on McCain.

I don't, however, think you made your point. To the contrary, as someone who has never cared much (to say the least) about our Arizona countryman, you made him a little more respectable to me.

You say that this is the central assertion of "national greatness conservatism" and you link to a Cato article to prove your point. You could link to a DNC article for the same effect; It's actually more telling to read what McCain thinks it is. What I found in the Cato article was the same kind of cynical contempt for (especially) military service that is pervasive among liberal elites, but they at least linked to an actual speech McCain gave.

It was this speech - the commencement address at Annapolis - that impressed me. More to the point, I don't think there is anything in it that supports your concern for - or definition of - national greatness conservatism.

911 was tantamount to Pearl Harbor. The big difference is that the enemy is not a country and this enemy has no qualms about raining nuclear blasts on your city and taking delight in slowly sawing your head off. This enemy can only be fought by dismantling the structures that give rise to such a menace.

The war against anonymous terrorism must be waged politically, economically and if necessary, militarily against the countries that support terrorism. Talk is good. Threats are better. But talk and threats are a joke if the enemy knows the words are just words.

Ticking time bombs are ready to blast if something is not done today. Terrorists in the future will have the capacity to decimate tens of thousands of human beings in the blink of an eye. Experts claim that this is not a matter of "if", but rather, a matter of when. The question is this: can we believe the experts? The leaders of Iran predict the destruction of Israel is at hand. Terrorists salivate at the thought of atomic weaponry in their hands.

It's easy to accuse the U.S. of "lying" about the war in Iraq. In reality,Saddam Hussein admitted to denying he had WMD while at the same time he adamantly made it look like he had WMD in order to ward of its enemy Iran. Unfortunately for him, he fooled all levels of U.S. intelligence.

In the wake of 911, when thousands of civilian men, women and children were incinerated in the name of Islam's Allah, the only logical solution ensued: In order to combat the ever-growing threat of terrorism we must begin to dismantle the structures that turn young boys and women into suicide bombers. Swatting flies is not a solution.

If your enemy has a big stick and wants to club you to death, you must get a big stick and warn him to back off. If not, you will be clubbed to death. If you know that your enemies are anonymous individuals, being supported by militant states who seek to destroy you, you better do something about it. Against this enemy, talk is cheap.

The other day I saw a lady wearing a shirt with the message: WAR IS TERRORISM!

Unfortunately, war is the reason we have freedom. The reason she can wear such a shirt today is because many lost their lives fighting wars so that future generations might have freedom.

If it were not for the kings of Christendom who fought a fierce battle against the forces of Islam in the Battle of Lepanto centuries ago, all of Europe would be Islamic today.

If it weren't for the allies in WWII, you might be wearing a swastika today. If it weren't for the United States a majority of the world would likely be living under communism today. War must be waged in order to secure temporary peace and freedom.

So what is the solution to terrorism? The bad news is that. theologically speaking, war is the consequential punishment for sin. Sin is the turning away from God. Militant secularism and the removal of Christianity from society is fiercely on the march in western societies. We're in the middle of Islam's distorted understanding of God and the West's return to paganism.

RE: R.C. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions. Usually when people respond to what I write by bringing up (in any way) some crazy, anti-Semitic theory, it's a smear. Even if not intended that way, including it brings up associations that stick in the reader's mind. Rather like saying, "I in no way mean to compare the author with a pedophile priest...." Technically, you're not comparing him, but whatever you say next carries that radioactive taint. I just spent several weeks defending Pat Buchanan from a smear conducted in the pages of the magazine he FOUNDED, which in a review compared him to a Holocaust revisionist. So sorry if I overreacted--but please be careful with your rhetoric, as careful as you want your opponents to be.

RE: Gisele, Er, I was making FUN of the neocons smears against the French, not echoing them. Sorry if it that didn't come across.

RE: Ender:
This is long, but I thought you might find interesting this John McCain speech, which sums his worldview up rather better:
http://tinyurl.com/3wp9tq

John:

Apology accepted. And I really wasn't aware of any trend among proponents of the Iraq war, or even those like me who merely argue that, in 2002, there wasn't a no-brainer open-and-shut case against it, to accuse its opponents of anti-Semitism. (The connection entirely escapes me; we're talking Iraq, not Israel!)

Had I known, I'd have gone with the NASA example instead of the Arab example, to avoid giving the wrong impression.

We should point out that abortion is far worse than both the suffering of the Palestinians and the Holocaust. The Pro-Life cause will take the sting out of the Middle-East conflict, thereby winning the War on Terror without bloodshed. After all, Al-Qa'ida uses pictures of muslim suffering to recruit. Pointing out that abortion is far worse derails this.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth." - [a href="http://tinyurl.com/dbuj"]Vice President Dick Cheney[/a]

Simply stated, there is no doubt this was a lie, because the Administration did not know any of this for certain at the time and there were various people (Hans Blix, for one, who was shouted down by the Administration) who said, in essence, "Until we look we don't know."

This lie of certitude, along with Condi Rice's dark terrors about mushroom clouds over New York, did a fine job of stampeding us into war.

And the best part? Once the weapons failed to materialize, Bush apologists turned on a dime and declared "We never said the threat was 'imminent'."

Of course, that means there was not a "lasting, grave, and certain" threat and therefore no just war, but all war apologists needed to do then was make a quick appeal to consequentialism ("Hey! We knocked over that statue, didn't we? Saddam's gone, isn't he?") and that was dealt with. The war became a struggle for the triumph of democratic capitalism and the lie that got us there faded away.

that looks at us funny is neither:

-Feasible or
-Desireable

Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. There is no "military solution" to Terrorism. We threw our war machine against Afghanistan and Iraq and what did it do? Tie our hands is what it did. People say we are fighting them over there so they won't come over here. That is a very illogical statement. It doesn't take too much doing to relocate to a place our military isn't, and plot attacks there. Are we going to invade Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan....to get to the bad guy? How can we do that? Do you see the madness in Pre-emption? Terrorism is an Intelligence and Law Enforcement issue...because in the end, that is who is going to thwart terror attacks. Intelligence to find out what they're up to...Law Enforcement to go get them. I'M NOT SAYING THE MILITARY HAS NO ROLE. What I am saying is invading every country Muslim Extremists might hide in will become a very long list.

"As Catholics who really believe that the cafeteria has closed, we have no right to snicker at the liberals who stock up on the granola of peace and justice"

It's a little bit heartening to see so many "faithful" Catholics twist a bit in the wind of a sharp and insightful essay. Thanks for it.

But there is one problem with the "heresy" connection with pacifism. Non-violence is as permissible as war, with its own set of conditions.

John, you also labor under a certain ignorance of pacifism. It's always worth getting educated on it. Non-violence has been surprisingly effective, even in dealing with corrupt immoral and massive persecutors such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Britain.

If a country is indeed engaging in a Just War, it is a Sin for a citizen not to do their part. Doing your part doesn't necessarily mean bear arms, but there are other things a citizen can do to contribute. You have self proclaimed "pacifists" who think ANY war is immoral (which isn't what the Church teaches, and such a belief actually contradicts Church teaching) and refuse to do ANYTHING, which I have to wonder if its principle or cowardice. If you want to be a Non-Combatant, be a Medic...or raise money, or volunteer in the USO, or Veterans Association, or something.

David W and Todd:

The essay, "Why I Am Not A Pacifist," from C.S.Lewis' The Weight of Glory is begging to be applied here.

Check it out.

Assuming Lewis is not in error, then, yes, it is the moral responsibility of a citizen to answer the call of his government to participate in a Just War...and to do otherwise, if it is an unjust war. No provision is made for wars that are "close calls" or so well-balanced as to be (net) morally neutral; I suppose in that case individual consciences will judge differently.

But as regards pacifism in general, Lewis lays out that it proceeds from "a very doubtful historical basis, an obscure train of reasoning, with the weight of authority both human and Divine against me, and strong grounds for suspecting that my wishes had directed my decision."