We can probably agree that the invasion was very poorly planned, at least the aftermath was. Furthermore, the insurgents (thoroughly unpleasant people in the main) have to take a share of the blame.

Let’s assume for a moment that the invasion of Iraq was just, supported by the UN and that the dodgy dossier was un-dodgy, indeed accurate and fair. It would still have ended in tears.

It may simply be the case that any solution that involves killing people is wrong or will back-fire. So, what should we have done, or rather what should we do in future? Iran for example …..

Regards Paul Sagar’s anti-theist stance.

It’s actually an anti-Christian, pro-Muslim bias.

As I point out earlier, he is happy on one side to quote Muslim university sources as the evidence basis for starting new threads on LC – without any snide comments about (Muslim) theists at all.

But then in this thread, he can’t resist a snide comment about Christian theists: when the root of his criticism (concept of an all powerful god ) – applies equally to other religions like Islam.

You’ve been caught out Paul!

I think it also says a great deal that in the MSM it was always the anti-war lobby who faced the burden of proof and scrutiny, and never subjected the pro-war claims to anything like that scrutiny (lack of appearence of Scott Ritter for example). In a sane political system it should be the other way around, with “not going to war” being a default position that would require mountains of evidence to shift.

Or is it just the anti-war lobby who are expected to couch their arguments in caveats and nuance, while the pro-war lobby get a free pass?

See I can understand the point your making, and it’s fair enough as far as it goes. But you’re missing the rather glaring fact that the arguments deployed before, during, and after the war, to justify it and win over the public were egregious propaganda. What’s more they have clear echoes in the article under discussion.

“Judging by the dominant reaction of the British press, its sole function is to prove what we all know to be true: that the invasion was immoral and Tony Blair is to blame. The surfeit of moral certainty among the commentators is suspect; the zealous clarity of their moral waters needs muddying.”

I hate certainty on difficult issues – it really offends my liberal spirit. You don’t have to prove the opposite to prove that uncertainty is justified. Zealous certainty, whether about the direction of the stock market or about what an obviously wicked thing a prime minister did, is hardly justified about anything. It tends to be a way of closing down discussions.

So, for example, let’s not debate the pros and cons of changing union legislation or no longer supporting unprofitable mines; let us instead just equate the word “Thatcher” with “evil” and move on.

Similarly, instead of trying to imagine what it must be like dealing with an aggrieved administration determined to engage in a war, a known dictator, the twenty year future of transAtlantic relations, all the possible permutations of wmd outcomes, all the uncertainty and politics, let us just characterise the invasion as gangsterism, oil-chasing (yeah, let’s do something that puts the price of oil up, real smart), imperialism, whatever – it is so much easier being Manichean.

I do not major in Iraq war ethics, but all I know is that I have never found it easy to decide when considering the vast number of possibilities and uncertainties (and misfounded certainties about wmd existing), what I would have done as Prime Minister. Perhaps I am thick; perhaps I am more indecisive than the typical slogan-writer. But the certainty is what offends me, not any particular argument. Iraqis died – this must be murder. We were involved – so we are the murderers. Hey, ethics is easy!

I did not link to that article because I agreed with all its logic or conclusions, but because it went against the occasionally arrogant certainty that seeems to me to characterize the war.

lso, because as a recent graduate in global history I am deeply impressed with the way that standards and outcomes for wars have shifted over time. The outcomes and decisions taken by our forebears, who now stand proudly on plinths all around Westminster, would end them all up in the Hague. This is one of the most profound changes in history, but one that I seldom see inform the debate.

Anyway, let’s let it rest. I appreciate there is not going to be much movement here.

Are there any of Biggar’s arguments in particular that you found compelling and want a more serious response to? I read his article as a rehash of arguments which have already been debated to death between 2002 and 2009.

I know in fact, though, that you are jealous because you would like a version of the Decentpedia which covers the output of the New Economics Foundation

And, come to that, I hear guys like Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas weren’t complete idiots.

I appreciate many of your arguments, Paul, but that comment is too snide. Biggar does not use the “god was on my side” argument so his political arguments deserve to be deconstructed solely in political terms.

As a long term atheist, I have mellowed my antipathy to theists and made friends. I have not changed my atheism, I merely recognise that most faith believers conduct themselves rationally outside their ceremonies. Jesuits (pretty close to the bonkers wing of the Catholic faith?) fund rational science. Isn’t it a good thing that theists engage with the rational world?

“Yes, the occupying powers were obliged to maintain law and order, and failed initially. But the insurgents were obliged not to send suicide bombers into crowded market places, and they have failed persistently.”

The argument here really is: ‘yes we messed up big time, but terrorists are bad’. That’s not a parody, it’s a fair summary.

Some arguments are so hopeless they demolish themselves.

They must have been very brilliant. THe sheer reference to them is quite awesome.

The difference being that that relies on evidence which needs to be re-evaluated whenever something new comes to light. Here we’re just arguing about arguments, and very old ones at that. I’m sure people here would be very happy to consider Biggar’s arguments, if they hadn’t heard and debunked them a thousand times already.

When the same weak-ass arguments keep resurfacing, and being hailed as “brave” and “complex” every time they do, the appropriate response is parody rather than engagement.

Look at this:

the insurgents were obliged not to send suicide bombers into crowded market places, and they have failed persistently

Is this a good or useful argument? Is it novel or complex? Is it brave to be saying such things? No, it’s just a pile of very, very old bullshit.

Would you like this method applied to the proof for global warming? (“Oooh, I know what they’re going to say! They’re going to say the ice is melting! OOhh, I told you so!”)

Friend’s comment seemed most apt for me. I’m glad this blogsite is found so entertaining by those already convinced of its thesis. That is most impressive. I still find the article useful. SHows how thick I must be.

I really don’t care whether the war was legal or not, because it was so obviously going to be a hideous disaster and that fact alone should’ve stopped us. As for the stuff about “strictly following a new interpretation of the law”, I’m at a loss. “Not invading countries without SC consent” doesn’t strike me as being particularly new, nor very alarming.

My point is that international law re: elective warmaking is fine as it is. It’s currently very hard to launch wars of choice with international backing and without provoking outrage, and that is just Fine By Me. So when Biggar announces to the world that there are lots of constraints on western powers’ abilities to make war, my response is Good.

Hang on, I was in Nottingham in December. (Nice place, I like it.) I didn’t kill anybody – or given my celebrated ineptness, even try to. Are you saying that I ignored the law? I really don’t think that’s right.

Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin pretty explicitly wrote the UN charter to allow them to invade any and all states they felt necessary, and the text hasn’t changed since.

I am not a lawyer, but there is more to the understanding and interpretation of laws than the original text. For one thing (again I’m not familiar enough with UN law to provide examples), laws don’t change so much as amendments are made. (See the US constitution for example: which originally neither allowed nor forbade gun possession, etc.)

Arguing that committing to strictly following a new interpretation of a pre-existing law is somehow not a change in policy is pure sophistry.

Maybe so. (I could spend a lot of time arguing about this; I’d rather not).

From Robin Cook’s resignation letter:

In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support.

In practice I believe it is against Britain’s interests to create a precedent for unilateral military action.

Note the word ‘precedent’ which is important in law. Tony Blair (a lawyer) wrote back and did not gainsay his arguments. Both letters here

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Moral courage in Alternative Iraq http://bit.ly/aXKKWU...

Which doesn’t remotely begin to address the question of whether changing policy to strictly follow one interpretation of that law would be a good thing.

Laws and regulations get ignored all the time, from the one about it being legal to kill a Welshmen in Nottingham to the one about no bailouts for Euro states to the one about establishing a standing UN military command.

I am unaware of any pre-1990 historical precedent for the idea that military action suggested by a member of the UNSC with veto power should not take place because it could be illegal .Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin pretty explicitly wrote the UN charter to allow them to invade any and all states they felt necessary, and the text hasn’t changed since. In all of the US, European and worldwide movements of opposition to the Vietnam war, there were, as far as I know, no voices that held the war to actually be currently illegal under the existing UN charter.

Arguing that committing to strictly following a new interpretation of a pre-existing law is somehow not a change in policy is pure sophistry.

“A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country’s intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/04/iraq.israel

In other words, the British government’s dossier on Iraq’s WMD, published on 24 September 2002 for a special session of Parliament, didn’t just “sex-up” intelligence about Iraq’s WMD.

What’s worse is the report in this review in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz of the book by Ron Suskind: “The Way of the World – A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism (Harper Books, 2008)

“The most sensational and disturbing lie of all is Suskind’s revelation, solidly sourced, that, even though they knew Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Bush and his men convinced the American public and the entire world that their country had no other choice but to embark on an armed invasion to keep the tyrant from Baghdad from using those weapons on his enemies.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037233.html

And Blair knew that before the invasion in March 2003 from this leaked Secret minute of 23 July 2002 concerning the visit of the then head of MI6 to Washington:

“C [the traditional title for the head of MI6, Britain's Secret Intelligence Service - at the time: Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The final sentence is absolutely damning: “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

The theology professor must weigh in his moral balance not only the illegality of the Iraq war and the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians but the lies told by the governments of America and Britain to their respective electorates in order to justify the invasion.

A consideration that must have surely weighed with the French government at the time of the UN Security Council debates on Iraq, prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is its Muslim population of some 5 to 6 million.

We tend to forget or overlook the history of French experience of terrorist outrages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Paris_Metro_bombing

Would I be wrong for paraphrasing Biggar thus? “Among other things, Iraq came within 2 years of working nuclear weapons, but no closer than that [ie it didn't have any nuclear weapons; and it stopped or was prevented for reasons Biggar chooses not to discuss], because of this, it was necessary to invade in 2003.” That *really* makes sense. “Hans Blix thought Iraq had WMD.” Not really, as he said recently. “There were 17 UN resolutions calling on Iraq to disarm.” Gordon Brown, who ought to have been well briefed before Chilcot, thought there had been only 14, although he doesn’t say what they called for. (I find it admirable that after the first resolution calling upon Saddam to disarm, the UN decided just to go on passing 16 more resolutions calling for the same thing. If they indeed did, which I consider rather unlikely. I’m accusing Biggar of making stuff up here, BTW, if it’s not obvious.) Here is a complete list of Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) involving Iraq [1991-2004]. “Saddam was looking for fissionable uranium.” No, he wasn’t.

Chris Brooke @10 “The Problem of Self-Love in Augustine” Is there more to it than “makes you go blind, mentally feeble, gay, etc?” I’m only asking.

Nobody said anything about moral outrage – that was you. I suggest to you that even short, decisive wars are always horribly violent and destabilising; that there are always unforeseen results, and that other nations might not regard a bloodbath on the Tigris as being in anyone’s interest. This stuff is, you know, common sense.

FR claims that, although states are amoral on the international stage, nevertheless a large number of them acted on the basis of moral outrage in opposing the invasion of Iraq.

Actually, Germany opposed it because Germany believes in a common European foreign policy and it never minds being in a position to say to France “oy, you owe us one”; the other assorted large and small states did so because giving America the finger plays well with domestic public opinion. Well, either that or else everyone else just is morally superior to the English-speaking world. I leave you to figure out which is more likely.