Comments Elsewhere

Patrick,

I’ve re-read Leiter’s post and I now think your interpretation is more reasonable than when I quickly read things over this morning. I don’t know if it’s right—and I think that not considering clear alternative readings was a mistake on your part—but calling it a “wilfull misreading” was out of line on mine.

My bad.

That said, I’m a bit puzzled by your and zwichenzug’s discussion of the U.S. role in World War II. For example, when you say:

“Hell, FDR basically fought a low-key war of aggression against Germany for practically a year before Hitler declared war on the US. I mean, Hitler was absolutely right to complain that the US was bascially fighting against him without declaring it.”

Which you then follow by saying:

“I was merely pointing out that some wars of choice are justifiable. Some wars of aggression are justifiable. Some wars which involve the conquest of the sovereign territory of other nations are justifed. WW II is one of them from America’s standpoint.”

But if the U.S.’s role in World War II was morally justified (something that I don’t, incidentally, take to be nearly as clear as you do, in light of the actual conduct of the war), surely the reason that it was justified is that it was a defensive rather than aggressive war. Not in self-defense, prior to Pearl Harbor (and arguably never in self-defense in the European theater), but in defense of others against aggression. You may have an argument that this makes it a “war of choice” (thus a justified one, if justified) — since I don’t know what the hell “war of choice” means, I’d be glad to concede the point anyway. But it is certainly not an argument that it is a “war of aggression” (thus a justified one, if justified). Unless you intend to offer some pretty weird theory about why the U.S.’s role was justified, it seems that insofar as you give justifying reasons, you undermine the reasons for calling it a “war of aggression.”

zweichenzug,

“Very briefly on Afghanistan — if they nation of Afghanistan had attacked the U.S. then the case would be clear. The nation didn’t, so the case is muddy. I’m not claiming to be certain that such a war is unjustified.”

Do “nations” ever attack? If so, what constitutes an attack by a “nation”? (Does everyone have to attack? All at once, or one at a time?) If not, then does that make the case for all wars “muddy”? (I think that it does, but I don’t know whether you’d be willing to accept that conclusion.)