War is hell. War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
Union General William Tecumseh Sherman
I am glad that I had to start over on this essay, which I began before President Trump’s deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or have their bridges and power plants destroyed. Minutes before 8 p.m. last Tuesday, a two-week ceasefire was agreed upon, which allowed negotiations to continue and the strait to be opened to shipping.
No one in their right mind trusts the apocalyptic, terrorist leaders of Iran, if any credible ones still exist. Reports say the newest ayatollah is in a coma. But apparently, some are above ground and able to agree to a ceasefire brokered by Pakistani representatives.
Some Americans were disappointed that the “day of bridges and power plants” was put on hold. Others were worried we would lose the military advantage by postponing the planned attack. I’m not an expert like the talking heads on TV panels, podcasters or politicos with microphones thrust into their faces. When I was practicing medicine, we joked about an expert being someone 50 miles from home with a PowerPoint presentation. That probably wasn’t fair. And it seems to me that we have already won the war with Iran and we’re just trying to find a way to not lay waste to a country of 93 million, while ending their quest for nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile program to deliver them. We are also demanding that the Persian Gulf be opened to shipping and that Iran stop supporting their terrorist proxies. This is certainly a heavy lift, but a noble objective.
Nineteenth-century Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of policy by other means.” While that may be true, in a democracy, armies move by political capital as well as by military might. The two-week ceasefire was a political decision rather than a military one and I believe an appropriate good-faith gesture. It will garner political capital and I don’t believe it will harm our strategic position.
The phrase “Trust but verify” was made famous by Ronald Reagan in his negotiations with Russia and Gorbachev. Of course, we will be carefully observing the Iranians because few people think they can be trusted. And if a peace treaty cannot be hammered out in two weeks or Iran violates the agreement, I suspect there will be no warning to Iran and devastating consequences will result. Iran will have no time to put human shields on their bridges and around their power plants.
Is there such a thing as a “just war”? Since the time of the Roman statesman Cicero, many luminaries like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and others have written about the legal, moral, ethical, philosophical and religious justifications for war.
There must be a just cause for war. An obvious example is self-defense. Furthermore, only legitimate authorities can declare war and the ultimate goal should be to promote peace and justice. War should be a last resort and have a reasonable chance of achieving objectives. Combatants should distinguish between military targets and non-combatants. And lastly, military action should not be disproportional to the stated objectives.
Unfortunately, these guidelines of a just war are often ignored or sometimes lost in the fog of battle. General Sherman justified his march from Atlanta to the coast and then through the Carolinas to end southern citizens’ support of the Confederate war machine. Mustard gas was used in World War I. Carpet bombing of cities was used in World War II. And atomic weapons were justified in order to save American soldiers in the invasion of Japan.
In my second career as a writer, I’ve become a stickler for the precise meaning of the word tools we use for communicating with others. So, is there a difference between murder and killing? In Exodus 20, God gave humans the Ten Commandments and the sixth explicitly says, “You shall not commit murder.” Mr. Webster defines murder as “unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person.” Webster defines killing as to “deprive of life.”
With this differentiation, I can lawfully and justifiably kill a rat in my house. But what about an intruder who breaks into my home and threatens me or my family? It would not be murder to defend myself from an intruder. And by analogy, it would not be unethical or illegal to defend one’s country or allies from the imminent threat of ballistic missiles eventually carrying a nuclear weapon.
There has been much banter among Democrats and their media mouthpieces about whether Iran, currently in possession of ballistic missiles and their continued efforts to construct a nuclear weapon, poses an “imminent threat” to our country and the world. Webster defines imminent as “ready to take place.” Should you wait for the intruder to enter your bedroom? Should we wait for a fanatical terrorist regime to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on Israel, Europe or just America before deciding it is an imminent threat?
Iran has been at war with the US and a threat to the world since 1979. Iran and its proxies have killed our military personnel, imprisoned our embassy staff and repeatedly threatened the United States and its neighbors. Sanctions of Iran and bribery with pallets of cash by previous presidents have failed to stop Iran’s ongoing, escalating and imminent threats.
Fortunately, we now have a president who will not be deterred by political concerns. President Trump is going to do what is right for the American people and the world and eliminate the imminent threat to the Middle East and the world, whether the feckless Europeans, NATO, the United Nations and Democrats like it or not.
I am dubious that the ceasefire will hold or that the apocalyptic Iranians will negotiate with us in good faith or abide by the terms of the agreement. But we must try. And who knows? Maybe President Trump “saved a civilization from destruction” with a return to negotiation.
