I'd be more convinced by it if it didn't lapse into "THE DEAD WILL RISE FROM THEIR GRAVES AND CONDEMN THOSE TROTSKYIST SCUM WHO LIED US INTO WAR!!!!111!!!!" so quickly.

Just sayin'.

Have to concur with "The paleoconservative narrative" insomuch as John Zmirak seems to believe that the war on terror is a war of choice, ignoring who started it. That the President decided to fight the war off-shore seems to annoy the h#$! out of the good folks over at 'Antiwar.com'.

Zmirak also belittles the efforts of those trying to keep a peace in world that shows it wants no part of such. Why?

My questions to Zmirak are, Do you think isolationism is the answer? Do we turn our backs on everyone who asks our help, or just those you decide we should ignore? I am very unclear as to what the point of the article is.

I wouldn't argue about "who started it" so much, though. It's kind of a rabbit-hole of excuse making for whoever decides to engage it, no matter the argument.

I think you raise a good question when you ask which countries we allow to be attacked and which we do not. Anti-war types normally dodge the question by arguing a counterfactual, though: well, if we hadn't provoked them by doing x,y, and z, they never would have attacked. Such arguments don't persuade me ever, but they seem to be very persuasive to them.

I disagree with you on the point of the article; I think it's very clear: neoconservatives, and anyone who didn't do enough to STOP THOSE FIENDS, can go to hell.

...Zmirak's right. Not every act of thuggery or aggression merits a response by our country. Nor are Georgia's hands clean in this matter. While I have zero--zip--zilch respect for and much suspicion of the Putinist regime ruling Russia, Georgia is not a vital national interest. Not remotely. I say let the Europeans handle it, knowing full well they won't.

Leave Russia to its own devices, save where it barges into a vital area, and the demographics will resolve the problems posed by that once-great nation.

Never forget, the Copperheads were SURE that Abe Lincoln was wrong too. When it comes to the judgment of wars, judgment in most cases is probably best left to history.

Regarding "after life" accusations, you can "bet the baby" (pun inteded), that all of the aborted (more in one day in America than the entire amount of deaths from the entire Iraq War), and all who were used as embryos for research, will indeed "Be waiting." Bishop Chaput even tell us they will MEET us upon death.

The one man they will be most wanting to see I suspect will be George Bush, our most pro life president ever. Many don't even realize that the stem cell war is OVER. WE WON, thanks to George Bush. Had it not been for his withholding of funding (for ESR ONLY), Adult stem cells would NEVER have gotten so far advanced. Even the ELITE reseachers, albeit kicking and screaming, HAD no choice but to get on the bandwagon (that "ego thing" that also allows the same researcheres to kill embryos).

Last but not least, Bishop Sheen always taught that war was a consequence of sin, especially the sin of abortion. Anyone who doubts, I suggest you go to YOU TUBE and type in FULTON SHEEN AND FATIMA. You will find his video in 3 short parts. IMO, this was one of the most compelling programs Sheen ever aired; more for our times now than then. What he has to say should send chills through you.

I suggest every Catholic who has rationzalized a "vote for Obama", in good conscience, take a listen. Perhaps one would be wise in not being misled by the sins of man and the consequences. In doing so, we fail to see the real war raging out of control; the battle for souls!

Klaire

I basically concur with Dale.

It is indeed sobering to read about World War I and how it came to be. I just finished (or rather chose not to finish) a very depressing reading, Chesterton's wartime writing - showing that when a great mind goes stupid, it goes **really** stupid. All his fulminating against Prussianism, forgetting the Austro-Hungarian Empire, all his arguing that war was to preserve chivalry - a war that destroyed it, all his arguments about Prussian philosophies and eugenics, forgetting that it was the big ally, the US that had eugenics laws in the books (enforced by the way) while Prussia had to wait for Hitler for such laws...

But there is a sad reason why World War I was so brutal on civilians. It was fought by armies that had gotten their training in colonial wars, when everything was allowed in order to "subdue the savages". All the restraint, all the sparing of the civilian population that was the hallmark of Eighteenth Century wars (after all, they were fighting over places that produced wealth, and it made no sense to destroy that wealth-producing apparatus), all that went down the drain.

(It is depressing to see how in the Twenties, after the experience with poison gas, Churchill did not hesitate to use them against kurdis rebels because they were "savages". Churchill, proud precursor of Saddam Hussein).

So, when those soldiers came back to fight on a European theater, they applied the only standard procedure they knew.

It was thus that Bismarck, not known for sentimentality, could be shocked by Sheridan's comment that the French-Prussian war could be won faster by setting fire to the towns that dotted the countryside. The Prussian army had no colonial experience, of course, so it stuck to the old principles, but Sheridan had fought in the Civil War, and before that, against the Indians where "everything went".

The moral? Do not accept that certain people, no matter how disgusting they look, no matter how angry you are with them, no matter how awful their behavior be treated in war outside the rules, because those violations may turn againt you before you know it.

Think about it if you want to make a defense of waterboarding.

The ending also left a bad taste in my mouth, but I concur with the rest of it. Even the continuing question of why we're in Iraq as part of the badly-defined War on Terror. Iraq became a magnet for terror groups because of our presence, not the other way around.

I was, as a young college grad filled with neo-conservative gusto, practically gleeful about our entrance into Iraq. I sat at my computer and watched the live feed of our "Shock and Awe" campaign, cheering on the American Badass War Machine like a good patriot.

I have since begun to learn that patriotism often takes a different shape than talk radio and the National Review would have us believe. (Bill Buckley, founder of NOR, it should be noted, also came to the conclusion that Iraq was a bad idea.)

And here we sit again, pondering what entangling alliances and being the military savior of the world really mean. When we should get involved and when we shouldn't. What conscience and Catholic just war doctrine demand.

For many of us, our American patriotism and our Catholicism can feel at times to be strongly at odds. When I find myself in that situation these days, rather than looking for loopholes in characterizations of "prudential judgment" or some such, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the dictates of conscience and faith.

It sure didn't take long for the accusation of "isolationism" to rear its ugly head. Whenever anyone questions the wisdom of foreign military intervention the critics always trot out the spectre of isolationism. So does that mean our foreign policy choices are either a) military empire, or b) isolationism? If there ever was a case for non-intervention it is the current Russian-Georgian crisis. For those who denounce the Russion "agression" let me ask you this: if Georgia has a right to be independent from Russia, why doesn't South Ossetia have the right to be independent from Georgia?

Ah, the paleo-right, my friends in anti-imperialism :)

It's not fair that you paleos and libertarians are getting all the anti-war credit here at Inside Catholic. Us tree-hugging left-leaning hippies would also like to restate OUR opposition to US imperialism meddling in the affairs of other nations, nuclear brinkmanship, preemptive warfare, provoking Russia, and the Iraq war in particular :)

I think we are all in the excellent company of one of the greatest Popes our Church has ever known, the late John Paul II, who also spoke out strongly against this war. I will never tire of reminding people of that fact, because I think there have to be at least some on the mainstream right who could respect JP II in spite of his position on the war.

Benedict is not a fan of the war either, and my bet is that he will condemn US provocations against Russia in the same terms that JP condemned the conquest of Iraq. Foolish, dangerous, irrational madness. The Georgian president is not some champion of democracy, he is a shifty little weasel who was hoisted into power in a dubious and questionable election among widespread allegations of fraud, and who was told by this country NOT to attack Russia and went ahead and did it anyway. Because of his arrogance and pride we may be on the brink of a World War, over two miserable little breakaway sections of a miserable little country.

I'd like to compliment John on not just a fine article but a great ending. Yes, it's dramatic, but I think that's the point. It's not all that far-fetched to imagine we will stand and face all those who've lost their lives through our direct or indirect participation -- whether it be the unborn, the fallen soldier, the innocent civilian, etc.

I'm completely mystified by the weird notion of modern political discourse that, as long as you have assigned a tribal badge, you don't have to attend to the argument. Just call Zmirak a paleocon and your work is done.

In fact, he's completely right, especially the florid ending. In a democracy, we don't get to say, "Hey, don't blame me!" Democracies more or less get the rulers they deserve, which was his point about the difference between wars fought in antiquity and modern wars. We choose them. We cheer for the Badass smart bombs and answer the Fox New polls on which enemy is this week's Hitler. We fall for this stuff, over and over.

And if Andrew Bacevich tries to whack us upside the head and get us to think clearly, we say stuff like "Bill Moyers never interviews true conservatives, so Bacevich is no conservative". Label attached! Work done.

Dale: May your tribe increase! I'm happy to see your response! (Hope The Girl is feeling better!)

Joe H>

About your comments on John Paul the Great. I got the chance to talk to a Protestant minister who was going to Washington to protest against the war (well, if you are a Protestant, of course, you should protest...).

I told him "Do you realize what you are doing? You are going to Washington, to tell a Protestant President that he should heed the Pope. Martin Luther must be turning over in his grave".

But then, that's what you get when you live on a diet of worms.

My apologies to those of you who were put off by my inappropriate tone. Of course, the proper tone in which to discuss the eternal consequences of thoughtlessly entering a war with a nuclear power should emulate that employed at NRO. So, here's my first submission to The Corner:

Hey, K-Lo, we going to waste those samovar-polishers or what? I heard somewhere (was it TNR?) they're putting anthrax in Stoli bottles and shipping them to American sororities. Oh well, guess they're not ALL still evil Commies. ROTFLOL!

There, I feel better already.

ALOL! (Actually laughing out loud)

To be honest, the reason I didn't care for the ending was because it was a bit overwrought in contrast to the rest of the piece. I wouldn't dispute the responsibility of our government, and the damage done to our country, soldiers and their families.

But the scene of martyrs raised in glory in the concluding paragraph was a bit much. God-willing, a number of those soldiers will die in a state of grace and attain eternal beatitude, but none of them - especially if this is an unjust war - will "rise, restored to wholeness, bright with glory" simply because they lost their lives "not in quiet contemplation of the Cross but in a frenzy of bullets and screams and burning flesh".

Dying for a bad cause (even under orders) doesn't merit a fast pass into the precincts of eternal felicity, where the glorified will await to accuse those who sent them, or at least failed to keep them from it. It's a striking visual image, but it's bad theology, and while I'm not sure it's what was intended, it's what I read into it.

Rob H asks our hawkish friends,

"if Georgia has a right to be independent from Russia, why doesn't South Ossetia have the right to be independent from Georgia?"

A good question indeed, and here is another related question:

If Kosovo has the right to be independent from Serbia, why not S.O. and Abkhazia from Georgia?

Why did we bomb Belgrade into the stone age for doing what Georgia claims it is doing now - preserving its territorial integrity?

Moreover, why the h**l did we invade Grenada and Panama back in the 80's?

Haw haw haw.

Forgive if I see no indication whatsoever of us actually entering a shooting war with Russia over Georgia, considering that we didn't over Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, or Russia's other imperial overstretches. The paleos have been saying we're really, really, really, really going to commence war on Iran any day now for the last... what, five years?

What I see instead is a small humanitarian mission to a battered country, and a strengthening of existing alliances. 1948, not 1914.

Besides, for it to really be 1914, Russia would need allies.

I think the idea that Georgia has only itself to blame is quite immoral. Russia did two provocative things. First, it gave everyone in South Ossetia who wanted one a Russian passport. Then it amassed troops and tanks on the Georgian border, and waited. The Georgian forces had only to take the tiniest step in repressing break-away soldiers in South Ossetia to be over-run, and told it was their own fault they were over-run. The Russians were waiting to take the first opportunity to invade Georgia. The fact that their army has blown up at least one bridge way beyond the contested regions shows that this has nothing to do with the desire of the South Ossetians for 'independence,' and everything to do with the desire of Russia to repossess Georgia as a whole. An important oil-pipeline runs through Tbilisi - the Russians care far more about that than about 'liberating' the South Ossetian peoples.

NATO gained no strategic advantage that I know of in creating an independent Kosovo. Russia gains every strategic advantage in resubjugating Georgia. One of the problems with the amoral 'moral equivalence' thesis in this case is that - as all of its supporters maintain - we have no interest in Georgia, and Russia has every interest in Georgia.

Like all immoral theses, the moral equivalence thesis is not pragmatic. Once it has Georgia, Russia's 'near abroad' is Poland and the Ukraine. One of their generals has already threatened Poland with nukes. Once Russia has Poland, its 'near abroad' is Germany. Through the Baltic States, Russia wants to gain a strategic position in relation to the Middle East and its oil. Wait till your petrol costs as much as ours already does in the UK, and then say 'we have no interest in Georgia.'

So Georgia is to be sacrificed to a Russian Empire. Well, I suggest that the just war teachings justify Georgia's defense of it's borders from agression. The attack on Georgia was illegal and unprovoked. The United States can morally assist Georgia in its fight against Russia. Will millions die? Not hardly. Russia's military is a diamond pointed stick, hard but liable to break. It has an army of unenthusiastic draftees are are horribly abused during their service. Russia cannot risk any large or long term war. If the Poles can morally resist Russian agression, why cannot Georgia? This issue exposes not just the hypocracy of the neo-cons but also of the paleo-cons. Neo-cons supported Kosovo over Serbia and now the paleo-cons are supporting South Ossetia over Georgia. Such hypocrites. And there is no refuge in Catholic teaching on the just war. Georgia has every right and authority to resist agression under the just war doctrine.

I don't know what Shan Gill is talking about. Who started the war in Iraq? Did the U.S. not invade the country under the pretext of Saddam hiding WMDs? Did 9/11 not provide the trigger of an excuse? Yet no Iraqi was on these suicide missions? Have we not had a tyrant, worse than Saddam Hussein, 100 miles off the Florida coast? I guess liberating the Cubans was not our business, but "liberating" Iraqis was? What a liberation!! About oil? No question about it. If opposing tyranny meant more than oil our government would, at least, stop favoring China.

"This issue exposes not just the hypocracy of the neo-cons but also of the paleo-cons. Neo-cons supported Kosovo over Serbia and now the paleo-cons are supporting South Ossetia over Georgia. Such hypocrites."

This is true only if one refuses to analyze issues based upon their particulars and instead retreats into abstract ideology.

Kosovo is an historic part of Serbia. There is no historic basis whatsoever for an independent state of Kosovo. An independent Kosovo does nothing but create a state run by Islamic mafioso in the middle of the one of Christendom's first bulwarks against assault by Jihad.

South Ossetia is not an historic part of Georgia. Indeed, its history supports its separation from Georgia and its close allegiance with Russia. The reason that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia boils down to "because Stalin said so."

Traditional and Paleo-conservatives put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the historical and the particular. Insofar as they have opinions of the events in the Balkans and the Caucasus, they tend to realize that American lives are not immediately threatened and thus judge the matter as none of Americas business. And insofar as they view any side as having legitimate claims and grievances, they side with the precedence of tradition and history. And they thus have no problem saying that South Ossetia should be treated differently than Kosovo. They're two different places with two different histories.

Neo-conservative rhetoric falls back upon the abstractions of self-determination and liberal democracy as the only legitimate yardstick for judging regimes. As such, it is hypocritical to deny the inhabitants of South Ossetia the independence from Georgia and the close relationship with Russia they so crave on the basis of international law and the sovereignty of Georgia when international law and the sovereignty of Serbia didn't stop them from calling for the recognition of an independent Kosovo.

RE: Steve Skojec's concerns. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that every soldier who died in a futile or unjust war would be saved by virtue of that. Otherwise, there'd be a lot of neo-pagan SS officers in Heaven.

But plenty of soldiers die in combat, in a state of Grace. At the General Resurrection--as Purgatory is "emptied," there will be quite a few flanking Our Lord, alongside St. George and St. Sebastian. And they'll have some pretty sharp questions for us, I imagine....

SUBJECT: “Blood In August: On Avoiding World War III”

Dear Dr. Zmirak:

After several readings of your “Inside Catholic” article cited above, I can only conclude that you appear to be uniformed as to the state of Japan in August, 1945 and how the A-Bombs dropped there not only saved hundreds of thousands of allied lives but was an act of mercy to the People of Japan who otherwise would have had to be killed-in-detail. I suggest that you read the book cited on the attached note and do not again so easily comment on the dropping of those bombs until you have done so.

As to war itself, I strongly recommend the following book to you:
Webster, (Fr.) Alexander F.C. & Cole, (Professor) Darrell;
The Virtue Of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West;
Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury (MA); 2004;
ISBN 1-928653-17-0.

The classic bogeyman and slur leveled against anyone who has the gall to think America should mind its own business. I feel for the Georgians, but Mr. Zmirak and Pat Buchanan are quite correct in their assessment of the situation. Russia came to the aid of the South Ossetians, who do not want to be part of Georgia. Yes, Russia has been aiding the seperatists...just as the United States has aided seperatists over the decades. I also agree with Buchanan in that expanding NATO was a big mistake...hell, HAVING NATO still around is a big mistake. NATO should have been dissolved (or other agreements substituted) when the Warsaw Pact fell. Instead, as Mr. Buchanan notes...we rubbed our "Cold War Win" in Russia's face throughout the 90s. Putin has, by word and deed reestablished Russia as a force in the world once more. Russia couldn't do anything about losing Eastern Europe, but this conflict demonstrates that when it comes to the former pieces of the Soviet Union, it won't tolerate ANY Western Encroachment. The Old Ways are reestablishing themselves very quickly.

This is a classic consequentialist argument: The other options probably would have had worse results, so the thing we did was morally legitimate. Never mind the nature of the action itself. This kind of moral reasoning has been condemned by the Church in Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Veritatis splendor.

Someone wrote,

"So Georgia is to be sacrificed to a Russian Empire. Well, I suggest that the just war teachings justify Georgia's defense of it's borders from agression. The attack on Georgia was illegal and unprovoked."

Illegal and unprovoked? Sounds like the US invasion of Iraq.

Isn't it at least a little awkward for you that the US actually warned Georgia not to attack S.O, not to get into a conflict with Russia? They knew this could happen, they knew it would probably happen, and they did it anyway.

At what point does the president of Georgia have to assume responsibility for his reckless and stupid decisions?

I don't know how anyone can condemn Russia for its rational anger at US political and economic encirclement. Only someone complete unacquainted with the barest geopolitical realities of the Caucasus could display this attitude.

All the noise and the saber-rattling does not hide the fact that

a) Georgia is next to Russia, while the US is thousand miles away.

b) To get to Georgia, Western troops would have to cut through countries which may or may not support the invasion.

c) The US military is strained already with two wars, and needs a third one like a hole in the head.

The logistics favor Russia, and the West knows it.

Russia has nuclear weapons and quite a bit of paranoia.

In the bad old days, when Russia was communist (now it is nationalist, and veering towards isolationists) the US would not come to the aid of Hungary when it tried to break free. Oh, they made high sounding statements, the played a very pathetic violin over the brave, doomed, Hungarias, but there was no military option. It was just too damn dangerous. They had made promises to the Hungarians that they never meant to keep, and foolishly the Hungarians believed them. Imre Nagy and Pal Maleter paid for their credulity with their lives.

So it will be with Georgia. There is a lesson there. Foreign policy is too serious a matter for rethoric. Never make promises you are not able to keep. Don't provoke the Russians. Russia already buried Napoleon and Hitler, and is the grave of hubris.

Be thankful that Russians tend to be isolationists who prefer not to go adventuring far from home - and be thankful that Stalin got rid of the adventurer Trotsky who wanted exactly that. Stalin was a son-of-bitch, but he knew when to stop.

Zmirak is correct that in any war, the truth is often the first victim. Truth victimized in logic can be called, among other things, “contradiction”, and contradiction in morality called “hypocrisy”.

Our Whigs (“Neoconservatives”), Social Democrats (“liberals”)and Cultural Marxists ("Progressives") ought be told that it is contradictory and hypocritical to say that Serbian may not assert her sovereignty over Kosovo but that Georgia may so assert hers over Ossetia. Likewise our Para-Fascists nationalists and their useful idiots, the “Paleoconservative” nationalists, ought be told that it is hypocritical and contradictory to say that Serbians should rule Kosovo (mostly Albanians) and that Georgians shouldn’t rule Ossetia (mostly Russians).

These "Paleoconservative" and Para-Fascist nationalists also ought be reminded, as ought all of us, that World Wars I and II, the mess in Ireland, the mess in the Balkans, the mess in the Near East, the current mess in the Caucasus Mountains, racialism, antisemitism, and the plague of “identity politics” were and are all caused by nationalism. Blessed Pius IX and Pius XI (Mit Brennender Sorge) warned us of such nationalism, the former a direct victim of it in 1870.

*The post war generation of the 20s saw World War I as a sickening farce, a view reflected in Paul Fussel’s _The Great War in Modern Memory_. In fact, it wasn't a farce but a classic Greek tragedy, one of Euripedean proportions. Once it started, the best outcome of a bad situation would have been letting the Central Powers win, with the result of no World War II, no Russian Revolution, no Stalin, no Mussolini, no Adolf, no Great Depression, no end of the Gold Standard, and no Cold War. And the Central Powers would have won had the US not intervened on the side of Britain and France – two countries with squalid empires of coolies. Not that the Central Powers had clean hands. They let Lenin enter Russia.

*“Prussian Militarism” is largely mythical. Ditto the so-called “guilt clause” in the very bad Treaty of Versailles. The Germans did not plan the war, and it caught them by surprise – as it did everyone else. The Germans entered the war not jubilant and hopeful but fearful and nervous. Cf the excellent Niall Ferguson, _The Pity of War_, so titled because, Ferguson says, the most powerful country in Europe today is ... Germany! And if that was what was going to happen anyway, then why two World Wars to prevent it?

*It was a war started by intellectual and moral pygmies. Had Gladstone been in 10 Downing, Bismarck in the Wilhelmstraße, Count Witt in St. Petersburg, and (to go back further), Tallyrand in the Quai d'Orsay, and Metternich in Vienna, the whole thing could have been avoided.

*The Generals, esp. the Douglas Haig, were stupid beyond imagination.

*Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lord Grey should have been tried as war criminals.

* American entry was the worst foreign policy decision every made by gringos, and Wilson was our worst president – to date.

*Kaiser Karl is a saint. Soon, I pray, literally.

* William Jennings Bryan might not make beatification, but his opposition to the US entry was his finest hour, opposition that his lefty biographers ignore.

* World War II ended. The Cold War ended. World War II is still going on. It never ended in the Balkans and the Near East – two fronts of that war, and two disastrous messes caused by that war.

The last paragraph was really over the top: "those men we sent to kill and die in the worst circumstances imaginable." Can you think of no circumstances worse? Really? How about dying in Saddam's rape and torture chambers? With no weapon to defend yourself, knowing you and everyone you love is at the utter mercy of a tyrant? How about dying in the womb, limbs torn off one by one as you issue a silent cry of agony--and your own mother and father the ones who orchestrated it? Are these circumstances not at least as bad? Will we also face those who died in these circumstances? What will we say to them?

Don't sneer when you call Bush pro-life. Maybe he was wrong on the Iraq war (though ten years of Saddam shooting down our planes doesn't quite seem like rushing into war to me), and if he was he'll have to answer for it. But he's right on the issue of abortion, and he is the most pro-life president we've ever had. You can think he was dangerously wrong on Iraq, and still give him some legitimate credit where it's due. That's only fair.

I did attend to the argument. I summarized it: "Damn us all to hell (but we were all deceived by the Trotsky-worshippers.)" I think that's a dumb argument, because it doesn't speak to anyone who doesn't hate neoconservatives.

Thanks, Joe. That means my article appeals (by this point in American politics) nearly everyone! If there's one group that has earned the loathing of every patriotic American, it's that sect of ideologues, who enjoy re-creating their late-night Harvard dorm-room games of "Risk" using real, live American soldiers.

My mistake.

Barack Obama is the one closer to the paleoconservative position on Russia, and John McCain is the one closer to the neoconservative position, and he's beating Senator Obama handily in polls as the one best to handle Russia.

Fine. America may hate the neocons, but they can't seem to stop agreeing with them. But, as the book said, that ain't your America.

I'm out!

"If there's one group that has earned the loathing of every patriotic American, it's that sect of ideologues, who enjoy re-creating their late-night Harvard dorm-room games of "Risk" using real, live American soldiers."

Yes, yes, we wouldn't want to think that anyone who supported the Iraq war could have had reasoned and sincere principles that led them to their conclusions (even if they were wrong). And thank goodness that John Zmirak knew them all personally (even their board game preferences at Harvard, wow!) These are the kind of exaggerated statements that make me doubt the basic intellectual honesty behind articles like this one. I thought Zmirak's article made some good points, but when he comes out with stuff like this, I wonder if he's just setting up straw men.

Elizabeth,

I think Zmirak's point about the Harvard risk-players was only meant to apply to the small group of neo-conservatives who have had an undeniable influence over foreign policy for the last 8 years. Paul Wolfowitz admitted in a public interview, for instance, that WMD was just a reason they "settled on" for going into Iraq.

The truth is that there have been elements in the government for the last 30 years, even since the Carter administration, who have seen securing control of the oil resources of the Persian Gulf as a primary strategic objective in order to maintain US hegemony. It isn't about cheap gas for American consumers, it isn't even primarily about profits for oil and defense companies; it is about control of a vital, strategic resource upon which America's rivals depend as much as America does. And, as Henry Kissinger once stated, "oil is far too valuable a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs."

The problem is that most Americans would not support a war that was waged for such purposes because the notion of "empire" is now out of moral fashion. No one wants to be a part of the dirty business of empire so it is necessary to call it something else.

There were plenty of people who bought the story about WMD, or about Saddam somehow being responsible for 9/11, and so their intentions may have been good in supporting the war. But those of us who knew about the neo-con agenda warned that there were no WMDs, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and that we were being sold a war on the basis of distortions, half-truths and in some cases outright lies.

Well-meaning people can often be duped, in other words, because they lack the ability to truly understand the logic and rationale of people who don't mean so well. To understand evil, one must be capable of evil thoughts.

What a hilarious romp this exchange has been--swerving through half histories and careening off imagined consequences of imagined events...but:

Rob H asks our hawkish friends,

"if Georgia has a right to be independent from Russia, why doesn't South Ossetia have the right to be independent from Georgia?"

ah, no no no...the REAL question is if South Ossetia (and or Gerogia) has the right to independence, doesn't The South?

When those of this century who are certain that no situation merits war can admit that Lincoln was wrong and Grant and Sherman were murderous opportunists, then we'll have progress on the matter of what constitutes a just (or decently justified) war.

(yes, I am a mite prickly on this matter, but keep in mind that Pius IX was sympathetic to the South.)

A man believes his own opinions to be correct; else they are not his opinions.

And if someone else disagrees, then a man's entitled to think that "someone else" is wrong.

But it's one thing to believe the other fellow is wrong, and quite another to hold him to be so wrong that his mere holding of Opinion Y is mortal sin; not only mortal sin, but sin we are unwilling to forgive; not only sin we are unwilling to forgive, but which requires us to seethe with contempt for anyone who holds it, and to invent imaginary dark motivations and attitudes in them.

It is the usual process in war: People start dehumanizing their enemies.

So I agree with Elizabeth B, who says, "These are the kind of exaggerated statements that make me doubt the basic intellectual honesty behind articles like this one. I thought Zmirak's article made some good points, but when he comes out with stuff like this, I wonder if he's just setting up straw men."

Civil discourse is a vital resource like fresh water or fertile soil. Zmirak and others poison the wells, and sow the ground with salt, as they use "neo-con" as an epithet instead of a descriptor, and brand them Trotskyites, Jingoists, and the like.

I regard Zmirak to have thereby disqualified himself for participation in reasoned discussion of this topic. This is why after picking up on the level of salt and poison, I didn't bother finishing the piece.

"Dying for a bad cause (even under orders) doesn't merit a fast pass into the precincts of eternal felicity" – yeah, that is what the American religion claims. They also claim that the dead who are somewhere up there are trying to look out for their loved ones down here. Well Islam has no time for such inane activities they are busy enjoying bliss with the virgins somewhere out there.

I like your view on this my friend. Although we celebrate different faith's, we seem to harbor a similar approach. Dialogue seems as important to you as it does to me. I'm going to guess you stick to a "Harm no others" policy much as I do, against foolish wars that are usually fought for selfish reasons. Props go out to you.
I believe that a country should only ever protect themselves, or their neighboring nations. That means in the proximity of one of their immediate borders and in land contact (or really close). NO INVASIONS OF TERRITORY, NOR INVASIONS OF PRIVACY, NOR ANY INVASION PERIOD. That is, alone the work and prerogative of a much much much higher power.
You and I are in neighboring nations and I believe that everyone has a right to exist. If we were all created from the same deity, then should we all not avoid destroying the precious things that have been created in their name.
Life itself.
Peace.

It's really pretty simple. World War One was truly avoidable, and if WWI did not occur, WWII would definitely not have come about...etc.

I'd like to think that there will be a balancing of the scales someday in terms of true justice, and that those who have spurred wars and committed true evil will not escape into oblivion and that those who suffered don't just go into nothingness either.

Fight the good fight, John, and keep some hope that life is not just some sorry accident.

I'll add a couple of brief points. Speculation about an American military response is rather pointless. We are in no position -- and lack the inclination -- to do so. There are a range of nonmilitary that are worth considering, e.g., disbanding the G8 and reconvening it as the G7 (without Russia), boycotting the 2014 Winter Olympics, etc.

As to the "provocative" actions of the Georgian president, he had little choice. The Russians were building an insurrection within his borders. For a head of state to fail to act in such a circumstance would have been feckless.

And bear in mind that this isn't just about Georgia. Putin is warning all the other countries in Russia's "near abroad," e.g., Ukraine, the Baltics, to get in line.



Lather, rinse, repeat.

Rather than concede that people of goodwill can disagree, Mr. Shea questions their intelligence, over and over.

It's amazing all these good republicans have come to realize what us "dirty f---ing hippies" have said all along - it's about the oil, and it's the wrong thing to do. There are no just wars; it doesn't matter what some shabby preacher says about it. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to "al CIA-da" and no role in the false flag of September 11; there was no Gulf Of Tonkin incident, Manuel Noriega was our guy, and the students in Granada weren't actually in any danger (not like, say, the Marines who were blown up in Lebanon). Wars are started on lies because the true men in power are making a killing (literally and figuratively) off of them, and religious "men of peace" are actually just con artists.

And what then of Joan of Arc? Shall we strip her of her sainthood for being a warmonger?

Yes, of course The South had a right to independence. Whether or not their cause for doing so is justified, a people always have a right to secede from any government they deem oppressive.

Good point, MJ.

Fox News mentioned! Work done.

Rob,

You write,

"Yes, of course The South had a right to independence. Whether or not their cause for doing so is justified, a people always have a right to secede from any government they deem oppressive."

While I sympathize with that notion, I'm not sure it is a Catholic one. The question is, "how do we deem it" - if we were successful in securing protection for unborn human beings under the law, for instance, some elements in the pro-choice camp would declare our government oppressive and who knows what they would do to get their way. But from our point of view it is the unborn who are currently oppressed because they are denied their humanity.

The South may have had a "right to independence" but it had no right to own slaves, let alone expand that dreadful system into newly acquired US territory. That was the immediate cause of the war. Lincoln did not oppress the South - he checked the expansion of slavery and the South knew that it had to fight or lose the entire slave system. Moreover, slavery is, and was by that time, a greater evil than national interests trumping state interests.

Joe H:
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing un-Catholic about advocating freedom from oppression. I never implied that The South had a right to own slaves. Not only won't I imply it, I'll expressly state that "no one has a right to own slaves or enslave another people". That doesn't change the core of my argument that they still had a right to independence.

Let's look at your example. Suppose that the U.S. FINALLY granted the unborn the protections they deserve, but California decided this was "oppressive" and chose to secede from the U.S. Surely you would not suggest that the U.S. military bomb California and destroy hospitals, schools, and homes while killing hundreds of thousands of people? I think we'd all agree that THAT would not be a very Catholic response.

Rob:

It is all right to say that everyone has a right to independence, but then you add that no one has the right to enslave.

The problem is that in the case of the South you have a contradiction. They wanted to be free in order to enslave. So, which is going to be. Freedom from slavery, or freedom to enslave?

Ages ago, a very wise man said that freedom is the ability to do as one pleases, and it is wise to know what pleases someone before contratulating him on his freedom.

In the hypothetical case of California breaking away to keep abortion legal, then would you defend the freedom to abort, in the name of supporting independence

That the war against the South was conducted against the rules of civilized warfare is true, but that does not invalidate the principle. The war could and should have been conducted differently - but then the Army, schooled to fight "savages" with no moral qualms about treatment of civilians, had no training in civilized warfare. (Bismarck would get to be appalled by this later on).

There is no freedom to enslave.

How did I get sucked into this one? I started out in Eastern Europe and now I'm trapped in the Civil War. :)

Adriana:
I agree with almost every point you make. I just disagree that you can't support a right to independence while condeming slavery. I guess I'd compare that to supporting someone's right to bear arms, but be against their "freedom" to kill their neighbor.

Again looking at our hypothetical case, I would not defend California's "freedom" to abort. I would speak out against their policies and support organizations that are pro-life much like I do today. I would support politicians within California that advocate pro-life issues. I would support boycotts of California businesses. Etc. However, I could not support a military attack, even a civilized one, to force California back into the U.S. (Now, if California chose to attack the U.S. in order to force abortions on us, then I could support a defensive war to preserve our independence.)

Aren't there alternatives to war? Without the Civil War, do you think slavery would still be alive and well in The South today? Other countries such as Britain, Spain, Brazil, etc. all ended slavery without war. Isn't it curious that those countries seem to have less racial tensions than we do here in the U.S.?

Now, even if I am completely wrong about The South and the Civil War, how does this relate to my original question about Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia? Are the South Ossetians guilty of being slave owners, abortionists, or some other evil that must be stomped out by the Georgians?

There is no freedom to enslave. Russia shouldn't be free to enslave Georgia. Georgia shouldn't be free to enslave South Ossetia. I'm just trying to be consistent.

As much as I respect John Paul II's efforts to prevent the Iraq war, I think he was objecting to the potential for death and destruction of the innoncent that any war will bring so in that regard I do wish the war had never happened as war is always the worst option, so its too bad Bush didn't listen to the Pope.
That said, as wars go, Iraq can be justified. The people were freed from a brutal dictator who was in the same murderous league as Hitler or Stalin. Using one's military might to free people from the violent oppression of dictatorial governments can be a noble cause. Otherwise, what?, we just ignore them?, and hope the dictator isn't too mean. Some things are worth fighting for, however South Ossetia doesn't seem to be one of them. Putin is not a dictator, at least not yet.
Thank you George Bush. I'll support a pro-life politician over a pro-choicer any day. The violent war on the unborn being waged by Obama and his ilk trumps everything else.
Tim in Toronto

Tim:
While I agree that some can make an argument justifying the Iraq War, John Paul II was pretty emphatic that a pre-emptive war is never justified. I believe he said this particular war, not all wars, was a "crime against humanity". Not a lot of gray area there.

Couldn't agree more with your take on South Ossetia.

I'm in Tim's camp, the war in Iraq can be justified.

One point that is rarely made is the nature of John Paul II's objection. It was not so much the reason for the war that Bush enumerated(see Tim's points above), rather that the Pope could look down the road and see that the *principle* of "preemptive war" was a very dangerous precedent to set--after all, not every occupant of the Oval Office is certain to be a man of faith and good will. Worse, the precedent is set for other nations whose governmental structure is less balanced.

It seems that Pope Benedict XVI is less discomforted by the war in Iraq. His remarks while at the White House this Spring had a tone that indicated as much.

This is not to say that he approves of it. But I wonder if we look closely if we can see that the Pope recognizes that if a time comes when Islam threatens nations and Catholics, that a military response will be an option that is best not mislaid.

wary Catholic:
John Paul II made it abundantly clear the just war theory would never support a preemptive war. I don't think he ever made it conditional on who was occupying the White House. Prior to the start of the war he sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to the White House with this message: "God is not on your side if you invade Iraq."

As for Pope Benedict XVI, he chose the name to carry on the mission of Benedict XV who was known as "the peace pope". In response to questions about the war's justification, he's said "all I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church." In his Easter message last year (2007) he said "nothing positive comes from Iraq". Maybe his tone has changed recently, but he has yet to issue any statements that suggest his view of the war is any different than that of his predecessor.

What on freeking earth do you mean by "the war in Iraq is just"
I don't know what you Americans are brainwashed to think by the CIA but us Russians have an incredibly different view on the matter.
One: A war for oil is not a just war, its stealing while murdering at the same time
Two: As for "liberating Iraq from a dictator" did they ask America for liberation?? and what makes the US presidents in history any different from the dictators you americans sneer at none stop. The US is a bully that oppresses other nations more than their supposed "dictators" ever did. God willing America might act against Russia on the S.Ossetia incident or the Poland missile shield crisis and God willing they will be sent back to hell by Russia, China, Kazhakstan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and countless other nations that stand up against the United States oppresion and militaristic attitude to foreign nations.

See www.fatima.org for Fatima on demand video conferences.

See especially, The Perestroika Deception in the Brazil Conference.