fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

There Is No “High Authority” to Start Wars

Joseph Bottum poses a question to conservative opponents of the Iraq and Libyan wars (via Andrew): But, by way of analogy, consider this: If you had doubts about the high authority of the United States to engage in those military actions, are you not required—for precisely the same reasons—to have doubts about the high authority […]

Joseph Bottum poses a question to conservative opponents of the Iraq and Libyan wars (via Andrew):

But, by way of analogy, consider this: If you had doubts about the high authority of the United States to engage in those military actions, are you not required—for precisely the same reasons—to have doubts about the high authority of the nation to execute its convicted murderers in the name of retributive justice? To apply the death penalty because its killers deserve to die?

Let me turn the question around on Bottum. If one believes that the U.S. government does not have “the authority to execute murderers,” as Bottum does, how could it possibly have “high authority” to start wars on the other side of the planet?

The answer to Bottum’s question is no. We are not required “for precisely the same reasons” to have doubts about this. If we are restricting this to a question of right authority, the two have very little in common. Unless the U.S. government is responding to an attack on American territory, citizens, or allies, it is normally not authorized to wage war against another state for any reason. As much as our leaders might pretend otherwise when it suits them, our government has neither jurisdiction nor sovereignty over other governments or the citizens of other countries. They are not subject to our government’s authority, and our government has no legal or moral right to treat them as if they were. Our government certainly doesn’t have any “theological authority” to start wars in other countries.

According to the Apostle, the ruler is entrusted with the sword for punishment of evil-doers. This is one of the scriptural bases for obeying secular rulers, and it is an acknowledgment that secular rulers have been entrusted with their legitimate authority to enforce laws and punish criminals for the preservation of a lawful order and the common good. It does not automatically follow from this that there ought to be a death penalty for murderers, but so long as the secular ruler does not abuse the authority he possesses we are still obliged to say that he has the authority to impose such a punishment.

The Libyan war was a bit unusual in that the administration obtained the minimal international authorization required, but failed to respect the Congress’ war powers. However, the international authorization was somewhat questionable since the situation in Libya never posed a serious threat to international peace and security. Regardless, the U.S. would not have had any authority to attack Libya without it.

States have authority to punish criminals because they have been granted power to wield the sword for the common good. It is not their responsibility or right to wield the sword against other states except to redress their grievances and injuries. A national government may or may not be competent to put murderers to death without committing injustice, but it has no legal or moral right to attack another state without cause. To the extent that international law attempts to impose order on an anarchic world, abuses of another state’s sovereignty are offenses against that order. In any case, a unilateralist supporter of the Iraq war could not claim to be acting under some high authority, because preventive warfare has no theological sanction.

Bottum’s essay is a curious one for him to write. After all, it was not that long ago that Bottum penned a long essay for First Things that essentially made the argument that foreign policy had become part of the culture war, and he held that a “new fusionism” linked interventionists and pro-lifers together in common cause. Bottum’s “new fusionism” was one of the more developed defenses of the perverse alliance of pro-life Christians and the supporters of torture and aggressive war in the name of a “new moralism.” It is more than a little odd to find him addressing war opponents, since it was just a few years ago that he considered us to be contributing to moral and social defeatism.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here