In the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq, numerous commentators argued over the wisdom and the morality of military intervention. Three prominent participants in the public debate—journalist Christopher Hitchens, William Galston of the University of Maryland, and Center senior fellow George Weigel— offered their divergent assessments at the February 6 seminar "War on the Horizon: Is It Just?"
Calling the potential conflict a "noble war," Hitchens insisted that the case for regime change was "complete." The Kurds in the north, freed from Saddam Hussein’s "horrific tyranny" by the protective umbrella of the no-fly zone, have successfully demonstrated that political transformation in the region is possible. They have created a vibrant civil society in just over a decade. Intervention in Iraq becomes entirely justifi ed, Hitchens said, when this fact is added to four other crucial considerations—Iraq’s weapons of genocide, the regime’s relationship to "international gangsterism," the need to safeguard the world’s oil resources, and the responsibility to punish and prevent ethnicide. Intervention is not only the right course of action but also a way "to redeem some of our past failings and mistakes and betrayals."
Galston countered that the Administration’s "policy of unilateral action based on a doctrine of preemption" or "prevention" carries an unacceptable price and sets an unacceptable precedent in international affairs. He acknowledged the grave nature of the forces arrayed against us, but said that "the issue is not whether to resist them but rather how. Applying to sovereign states measures appropriate for fighting "non-state or transnational terrorism" undermines the system of international law that, in the long run , best serves American interests. "When we legislate foreign policy for ourselves," Galston warned, "we are legislating foreign policy for the world, and so we must think systemically." Because Iraq is not "a direct threat to the territory and people of the United States," current circumstances do not justify military action against it.
Turning to the just war tradition for guidance, Weigel noted that "new realities of international public life and new weapons technologies have posed new questions." Among the most urgent is whether the "notion of aggression underway can be limited, as it often has been in the past, to classic cross-border attack." Weigel argued that it cannot, that rogue states with weapons of mass destruction indeed constitute "aggression underway" and forfeit their right to sovereign immunity. Furthermore, denying them "the capacity to create lethal disorder in world affairs serves the cause of world order." He went on to attack the widespread claim that the United Nations is "the only competent authority legitimating the use of force," to examine the misuse of the classic just war criterion of "last resort," and to emphasize that the just war tradition is meant to serve "responsible public authorities" who must be the ones to "make the call."
A lively exchange, moderated by Center vice president Michael Cromartie, followed. Among those participating were Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report, Andrew Ferguson of Bloomberg News, Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , Cragg Hines of the Houston Chronicle, Steven Lagerfeld of the Wilson Quarterly, Jay Tolson of U.S. News & World Report , Karen Tumulty of Time, and Peter Wehner of the White House.
