The Role of the Catholic Church and the Concept of Waging Just Wars according to Augustinian - Coursework Example

Persuasive Essay and Portfolio Analysis Contents Scope of Persuasive Essay 3 Introduction 4 Thesis ment 4 Motivation for Invading Afghanistan 6 Iraqi Invasion: Was War the Last Resort? 7 Preemptive Strikes 8 Christian Nation, the Papacy and the War 8 Going to War without Allies & Conscience of Catholic Soldiers in the War 9 Just war Principle 10 Footnotes 11 Sources Used in the Persuasive Essay 12 Relevant Pages of the Argumentative Process 13 Challenges in the Essay Writing Process 14 Scope of Persuasive Essay This paper examines the role of the Catholic Church and the concept of waging just wars according to Augustinian and Thomas Aquainas’ principles of waging just wars. The central aspect of the paper involved the evaluation of the fundamental debate of Bishops, Academics and Diplomats in the debate in a Catholic Context. The paper examines the debate from a Catholic perspective as long as from a realist secular basis in which principles of international relations are used to evaluate the issues and matters relating to the war and its implications to humanity and different people in the Iraqi and Afghan Wars. The discussions and fundamental pointers put forward by the different panelists is critiqued and analyzed in relation to the persuasion systems and processes that are used by the various debaters. The paper analyses the motive for waging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the processes used to assess the countries before the war. The position of the Catholic Church and the Papacy in negotiating before the war and the position of the single Catholic soldier fighting on the American war is examined and evaluated. The analysis is done with yardsticks from the Catholic position of waging just war as against the elements and aspects of secular principles that can be applied in waging wars and analyzing was from an International Relations context. The position of various actors are also analyzed and evaluated in order to find out their actions and in relation to the fundamental rules of Catholic thought and Catholic philosophy. Introduction There are different approaches in debating and putting forward one’s points and views in a debate or discussion. Persuasive techniques vary significantly and this provides the impetus for many different methods and approaches to each situation and each case. In this case, there will be the critical review and analysis of different persuasive techniques and approaches used by different stakeholders. This will provide the basis and impetus for the evaluation and analysis of the various techniques used by the different debaters in the symposium about the causes of the Iraqi war. To this end, the fundamental textbook for the course is used and this provides the basis for the evaluation of the different techniques and approaches used by people and stakeholders to examine the Iraqi war. Thesis Statement There are different approaches and methods that can possibly be applied to evaluating and analyzing the Iraqi war of 2003. This paper will examine the various persuasion approaches used by the different stakeholders in examining the arguments by various stakeholders. This will focus on Chapter 2 of Professor de Paulo’s symposium which he moderated. This paper proposes that the Iraqi and Afghan wars led by the United States are justified in the Catholic as well as secular view of international wars. The Professor commences the discussion by presenting the preamble for the discussion. To this end, the main and fundamental yardstick that was used by the moderator of the debate was the Augustinian approach to examining wars and the views of St. Thomas Aquinas which provides the yardstick for the conduct of a just and permitted war. They include the following pointers: 1. The war must be waged by legitimate authority; 2. The war must be based on a just cause; 3. The intention for waging the war must be right; 4. The war must not lead to attacks on innocent civilians and innocent persons; 5. The war must be the last resort, in other words, other approaches like dialog must be considered before war is waged; 6. There must be some prospect of success; 7. The war must eliminate a greater evil1. In 2002/2003, after the September 11th terrorist attack of 2001, there was some kind of pressure exerted on the US government to show the American people that their security was guaranteed and the state was interested in preventing further terrorist attack. This led to the almost immediate response of tightening security and interactions between America and other nations around the world, especially Islamic nations. Then came the invasion of Afghanistan, a nation that allegedly harbored the prime suspect of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Iraq came under the radar as a nation that held some amounts of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main argument put forward by US president George W. Bush was that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and allowing him to hold on to them would put America at risk since the WMDs could end up with terrorists and this could lead to massive attacks on Americans and American interests. Therefore, from Bush’s argument, the best situation was to invade Iraq. Many Americans criticized the American president for his move to invade Iraq. This led to numerous forms of protests and arguments in the US and beyond. In the book under review, various panelists and leading figures were asked about their views in relation to the war. They came up with numerous views and opinions and they used important techniques of persuasion to provide an insight into their views on the war. This research will analyze the different views and opinions put forward and these approaches will be critiqued. Motivation for Invading Afghanistan The United States’ invasion was examined on the basis of whether it was justified or not. Based on the yardsticks, the case of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan was examined in the context of whether it was a just war or not. Profess de Paula therefore presents the case of whether it was sufficient to invade Afghanistan on the grounds that they were harboring an enemy. Cardinal Dulles and Colonel Jacobs persuaded the audience that once the Taliban was apparently in charge of Afghanistan and there is evidence and direct linkage between the Taliban and terrorist organizations around the world, the United States had a moral justification to invade the Afghanistan. This is because there is direct causation between the hijackers of September 11th and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Deeper research indicates that there is strong linkage between Wahabbism, the fundamental ideology that was used to mobilize the Taliban against the Soviet invaders and the terrorists who plotted September 11th and the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania2. Thus, the two commentators argued in line with the fact that there was a sense of urgency to deal with the Taliban-led Afghan government and its mobilization of radical Islamic ideology. The Afghan question came with a fairly straightforward answer which was accepted by the moderator. But the next issue of Iraq came with major issues Iraqi Invasion: Was War the Last Resort? The Iraqi question came with a more difficult requirement. Professor de Paulo put forward the issue of whether all diplomatic avenues were exhausted or not. The initial submission of the clergy to the Iraqi question was mainly circumstantial. It was not really clear but the clergy argued that on the basis of Saddam Hussein’s history of killing his own people and the fact that there was evidence to believe that Iraq had chemical weapons, there was some kind of justification for the use of force to eliminate the threat. However, in law, where there is the use of force or the accusation of another person of a criminal, the standard of care is beyond reasonable doubt3. This has been the standard in countries with an English legal tradition and this has also formed the basis of the Rome Statutes which defines the methods and systems of dealing with wars4. To this level, it appears that the standard of care in waging war must be based on the ability to detect and identify that the war is necessary and the standard must be based on proving beyond reasonable care. Archbishop O’Brien identified the unilateral method and process used by the government to identify that Iraq had nuclear weapons. This showed that the war was mainly not beyond the normal or reasonable scope. However, Archbishop O’Brien argued that there was a strong presumption by the US government. And this was meant to indicate that the war was justified. But Mr. Marlin added that the British, Arabs, French, and Germans also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction5. Other commentators justified it on the grounds that it was necessary to ensure the self-defense of the United States and other civilized nations around the world. Preemptive Strikes The next question of the debate was why preemptive strikes were not used to destroy the weapons of mass destruction to prevent an all-out war which was known and perceived to be costly in terms of human life and money. Professor Caputo identified that the War against Terrorism was not an American issue. It was a global warfare against evil and against terrorism. Hence, there was the need for all countries and all groups, including US Bishops’ council to work with the US government to uproot an evil, rather than scratch the surface. So an invasion was justified. However, Ambassador Melady chose to take a role of a disclaimer because the whole thing of entering the war seemed to be against the Ambassador’s conscience as it was against the conscience of many other people. Christian Nation, the Papacy and the War Professor de Paulo’s next case was why a Christian nation was seen to have led a war when war is not the fundamental aspect and position of the ideologies of Christianity. This sounded absurd, especially in this situation where a Christian nation was going into a violent war against a Muslim nation. What happened to the requirement to love one’s neighbor as ones’ self or to turn the other cheek which was an instruction by the founder of Christianity? Professor Hagan identified Augustine’s ideology that in Christianity, war must even be peaceful and must heal. Hence, there is a distinction between waging a war that was negative and a war that is positive. However, critiquing this from a realist point of view, there is no distinction between a positive and negative war. All wars lead to the murder and killing of people. US President Wilson Woodrow whose intervention ended the First World War and laid the foundation of the United Nations sought to create international institutions where issues could be examined and reviewed significantly6. However Professor Hagan insisted that civil authority must control war when it is necessary to ensure that there is humanitarianism in wars. However Professor de Paulo was interested in finding out if the United States was at a sufficient risk to justify the use of force against Iraq. The panelists identified that it was not only the United States that was at risk, but a lot of other people who were in various positions to demand some kind of protection in the moral sense from the United States. Archbishop O’Brien also identified that the Pope sent a delegation to Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein never accepted the conditions given by the delegate of the Pope7. However, Archbishop O’Brien stated that he is not making a moral judgment because they might have waited for an unrealistically long time for Saddam Hussein to get back. So there was no clear pointer in this case and situation. Going to War without Allies & Conscience of Catholic Soldiers in the War The war was such that most of the allies refused to take their role in the war and this was because the United States rushed in to war (Archbishop O’Brien). There is a general issue with Catholic Soldiers in the war, but Archbishop O’Brien again stated that it is an individual situation and it is incumbent on every Catholic soldier in Iraq to go through it. Some of the Bishops also identified that the war was not a “holy” war or Crusade and the use of such terms by George W. Bush was imprudent. They identified that the war should be seen as a method of saving human lives including the lives of Shiites and other Iraqis who were continuously violated by Saddam Hussein and nearby nations like Saudi Arabia. Just war Principle There Just War Principle forms the basis and foundation of examining and evaluating wars and issues and matters in order analyze and evaluate wars in a moral way and manner. There is no need and no eliminate that. It is fundamental and forms the basis and scope of waging wars and to evaluate it from an objective standard to preserve the fundamental values of Christianity and also enhance peace and preserve humanity Footnotes Cooper John Milton. Reconsidering Woodrow Wilson: Progressivism, Internationalism, War and Peace. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 2008 De Paulo, Craig. Augustinian Just War Theory. New York: Peter Lang, 2001 Granatstein John. Canada’s Army: Waging War and Keeping Peace. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2010 McDougall Carrie. The Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013 Pfaff William. Fear, Anger and Failure: A Chronicle of the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism New York: Algora Publishing. 2013 Sources Used in the Persuasive Essay The main primary source that is used in the essay Professor Craig De Paulo’s book on Augustinian Just War Theory. This includes various debates and persuasive arguments presented in various forums and interviews. These are presented in an essay format in which all the stakeholders are presented in different discourses and various principles and matters. Secondary sources are used mainly in relation to defend and evaluate various processes and systems that are used in the discussion. The main secondary sources involved aspects of waging wars and the use of a legal and moral standard to evaluate international wars. This involved the use of Granatstein’s book on Canada’s Army’s wars and other matters. Also, there is a book on secular discussions in international relations that are used to examine elements and aspects of secular and mainstream international relations and its use of different ideas and concepts in waging and evaluating war. Also, some important elements and aspects of international legal matters are identified and presented through Carrie McDougall’s works on war crimes and international war standards. Also, issues relating to Wahabbism and US President George Bush’s ideas and ideologies are examined from various secondary sources that are presented and evaluated in the context of secular philosophy. This was juxtaposed with the principles held central and sacred by the Catholic Church. The books were identified and used as and when it was necessary. This included the identification of various books and processes or documents that were identified and used when the need arose. Thus, an ad hoc process was used to identify the books. Relevant Pages of the Argumentative Process The main process used was the central debate that was conducted with a large pool of intellectuals and clergymen in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book. This provided a rich source of discussions and views that were diverse and well informed about the Iraqi war. Thus, the debating pointers of each of the participants were examined and evaluated. The various findings and issues were weighed against the Augustinian and Thomas Aquainas standard as well as secular and realist views about the Iraqi and Afghanistan war. This was analyzed in relation to the submissions of the different stakeholders and the different players in the debates that occurred. This was examined from the centralized discussions and submissions to form an independent third party view of the writer. The main pages that were used ranged from 57 to 78. These were the main and the most central discussions that were presented by the main stakeholders and the main analysts that were involved in the various symposiums and discussions. This is evaluated from the context of the theories of Aquainas and St. Augustine. Challenges in the Essay Writing Process The main challenge that I faced in the essay writing process was the fact that there was no insight and direction for the diagnosis of the essay. There was a general lack in insight and direction of writing the paper. Therefore, there is the challenge and difficulty in trying to draw the framework and process for the writing of the essay. It took a number of weeks to define the structure. However, after some rough analysis and evaluation of the paper, I read the book and identified the right chapters that were most relevant and most important. I was able to evaluate the book and identify the most important and most significant parts of the book that could bring up to an evaluation and analysis of the entire book and the entire process. After reading the book, I noticed that the first chapter draws the background and gave me an insight into the fundamental structure of the book and the main process that will be used and analyzed in waging wars and its implications. The reading of the third and second chapters provided an insight into the main process and systems that are important and significant in analyzing wars and other processes inherent in wars and in their analysis from the Catholic Church. When the core reading book was evaluated, there was an obvious view that there will be an important method and process to analyze this. Therefore, there was a general process and a general tendency that was to lead to in-depth discussion and evaluations from the basis of analyzing secular worldviews and aspects of secular international relations. I therefore drew a plan to conduct the evaluation in such a way and manner that I will integrate important processes and important aspects of secular worldview. This was to enable me to draw a plan and a structure. With the structure for the essay drawn, I was able to write the whole essay and I kept reading secular sources and other realist sources relating to the case and the religious processes and systems. This led to the writing of the paper in an ad hoc process in which I wrote the paper and made major changes and modifications. Read More