When is war allowed?

[Originally published on a weblog called “What Is Liberalism?”]

I remain deeply confused about when the liberal tradition allows war. I found the following passage in John Locke’s essays on government. It says war is allowed when an enmity is discovered in another. Would this justify America’s war in Iraq? An enmity would include any plan on Saddam Hussein’s part to damage American interests. Does his struggle to break free of the embargo that he was under constitute a threat to American interests? Is there any doubt he was waiting for American will to weaken so he could take back the Kurdish territory? And haven’t the Kurds been loyal allies to America? Can Saddam’s enmity toward the Kurds be counted as an enmity toward America?

The following is from page 14 of “John Locke, Second Treatise Of Government”, edited by C. B. Macpherson, published by Hackett Publishing Company, published 1980 (originally published in 1690):

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

The above could be interpretered as justifying America’s action in Iraq, or it can be read as saying that America had a moral obligation to wait till Hussein’s dangerous intent was made more clear. Perhaps the above can be read as saying America had to wait to be attacked before it could morally counter-attack. But I disagree with that reading. I think the above text clearly justifies doing what needs to be done to preserve one’s life (and one assumes the lives of those who would join in defense of one’s cause). If the need for preservation of life justifies action, then it justifies action that minimizes the loss of life on one’s own side. Waiting for the enemy to build up their strength to the point where they feel they can comfortably or safely attack goes against the idea of preserving life. Given enough time, Hussein could wait till he acquired the weapons he needed, or he could wait till America was drawn away by another war somewhere else (perhaps involving North Korea or China and Taiwan). Waiting for Hussein to attack means waiting till he was strong or America was weak. Either scenario seems immoral if the goal is the preservation of life. Therefore, war would be justified, unless one believes that Hussein never meant enmity against America or its allies. If one believes this, then one is arguing that even if Hussein grew strong or America grew weak, Hussein would never take action to hurt us. This strikes me as unlikely line of argument, though if anyone wants to make it, I will try to listen with an open mind.

My views on Iraq are influenced by something my older brother (Lee Krubner) said a long time ago. In 1982 Israel sent warplanes into Iraq to bomb a plant where Hussein was developing radioactive material. That night my family sat at dinner listening to the news, as it always did. We heard the news and my brother said, “Once every ten years someone will have to do this, just fly into Iraq and bomb flat any plant that’s making nukes.” As my parents leaned politically left and my older brother leaned politically right, they often disagreed on political issues, but on this issue they agreed, so it struck me that it must be common sense. I’m still under the impression that such pre-emptive reasoning is a kind of common sense.