This “editorial” is crap.

Once again, as a former Georgian, I am ashamed to have asked my father to vote for Carter for Governor. I voted for Ford for President, at least.

Let’s examine the “editorial” in more detail. I’ve copied Mr. Carter’s New York Times “Op-Ed” in plain text; my comments are italicized.

Just War — or a Just War?


By JIMMY CARTER


Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

Our nation fought two wars against England, and counted France as an ally. No “NGO” authorized our revolution according to Mr. Carter’s criteria. No restraints were placed on the efforts of the combatants other than their willingness to suffer losses and expend treasure. Little in the way of international law existed at that time, other than “to the victor go the spoils”.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

This is my favorite paragraph. Mr. Carter cannot resist a slap against his former colleagues in the Southern Baptist Convention. Little has been written about the opinions on the ward that the Southern Baptists hold in the mainstream press, at least the press that appears outside of Plains. Perhaps some readers of this “editorial” will be curious enough to find out what those religious leaders believe we should do, or not do, as concerns Iraq.

I was in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. Mr. Carter was concerned with weighty defense issues such as repainting parking lots for diagonal parking instead of straight in parking, at least as far as I can recall at Randolph AFB in Universal City, TX. His “leadership” left the Shah of Iran to the mercies of the Iranian mullahs, resulting in the first religious dictatorship in the region. He showed impotence in the face of a clear attack upon US diplomats, allowing them to rot in Iranian custody for over 400 days. If ever a President was presented with the causus belli for “a just war”, it was him. President Reagan would have used our sovereign power to rescue those people immediately, as would both Presidents Bush 41 and 43.

Mr. Carter is a coward who cloaks himself in self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I love seeing him nailing together homes for the poor and needy; he should stick to what he knows. Appropriate application of military power is as foreign a concept to him as how to focus on large strategic concepts instead of piddling details.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

Mr. Carter would have done nothing to stop September 11th even if he had precise knowledge of the events on September 10th. Endless wrangling and delay has created a split between the US and its “allies”—France, Germany, Russia and China—who are acting like opportunistic hucksters. When the war is over, and the records of the Saddam dictatorship are opened for all to see, the source of Saddam’s war material and technology in recent years will be found among these four “allies”.

Israel exists today because it acted in 1967 before the Arab nations could launch their attack. Israel was nearly destroyed in the Yom Kippur war because it failed to take action on information available to it before the Arabs attacked. America was thrust into WWII by an attack that may have been foreseeable, but was not prevented by measures to alert our forces or assume defensive postures to warn the Japanese that a sneak attack would be impossible. By Mr. Carter’s “logic”, our policemen would have to wait until a gunman fired on them before using force to defend themselves.

Would Mr. Carter have us wait until Saddam reaches the level of North Korea, the level where clear possession of weapons of mass destruction would embolden him to thumb his nose at the world and dare us to act? Where he could pursue his mad dreams of becoming the second coming of Saladin and arming terrorists to attack the US with his WMD, or to threaten our national interests in strategic places throughout the world? Aren’t twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions, meek cruise missile attacks and responses to anti-aircraft radar enough to have exhausted anyone’s reasonable definition of diplomatic efforts?

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

No sane person wants war for the sake of war. No sane person wants innocent lives to be lost by accident. The weapons that we will use are many times more accurate than those used in the Gulf War. However, Saddam deliberately positions some military targets near civilian sites in the hope to deter us, or to create “photo ops” to discredit us as indiscriminate killers.

It is the nature of war that some innocent lives will be lost. Our apparent strategy is to use massive firepower to shock and overwhelm Saddam’s forces in order to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion with minimum loss of life on both sides. I pray that we are successful in that regard more than anything.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

Nope. Apparently Mr. Carter was playing with his slide rule during War College. Our attack must be massive. It must cause the world to gasp in awe. Dictators and terrorists the world over must know, once and for all, that the way to engage the free world is not down the path of war, but through serious negotiation with real outcomes.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The last time Congress had the fortitude to declare war was in WWII. The resolution that authorized the President to act after September 11th is as close as we’ll come to such a declaration. The people voted last November, Mr. Carter, and they didn’t give the Democratic Party majorities in either house of Congress, nor in most state houses.

Our President, as he said this past week, swore an oath to protect the Constituition of the US and the people of our nation. He is not the president of some toothless NGO, and our foreign policy is not determined by the UN.

If we have to occupy Iraq for a time, I hope that we will do so in the spirit of the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s efforts to restore Japan. The Marshall Plan cost ~$13 billion in late 1940s dollars. I’m sure that you would agree that it was a worthwhile investment in the future of civilization.

As Mr. Carter showed during his presidency, mastery of economics was and is not his strong suit. If the real motivation for the war was “about oil”, the President would only have to leave the situation as it is, without bringing an end to the crisis. The commodity markets hate uncertainty, and the rise in oil prices reflects the uncertainties of supply in the Middle East and in Venezuela. As in 1991, oil prices will decline swiftly once hostilities end and non-Iraqi suppliers bring their production back from temporary suspension.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The Plains press has your knickers in a knot, Mr. Carter. How could the situation NOT be a clear improvement? Another haven for terrorists will be denied them, not to mention technology and funding. The Iraqi people, perhaps the best educated in the region before Saddam turned rogue, will be free to express themselves politically and economically. Our President has said that we will not stay a day longer than necessary. Would you condemn the citizens of Iraq to endless butchery and torture at the tender mercies of Saddam?

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Doing what must be done, despite the wrangling of those who would ensnare us in a bureaucracy run by Poodles, will gain us the respect of our people and of freedom loving people everywhere. Once despots and criminals learn that the United States is a country of principle, and of its word, they will fear to challenge us, and will lose respect among those they hope to attract to their cause. Weakness breeds weakness, Mr. Carter. Do you feel guilty for the weakness shown in your policy towards Iran, and the chain of events caused by it?