Last week I went and saw the film, "No End in Sight," (Youtube trailer, here) about the deceit and dissembling that produced the war in Iraq; and this week I have been watching the TV documentary, "The War,"  (Youtube extended preview, here) about the US role in WWII.  The contrast brings Mencius to mind.

     Here’s one thing I noticed right away during the first episode of "The War:" one of the segments was titled, "The Necessary War."  There was a clear sense in the US, after Pearl Harbor, that the country could no longer avoid involvement in the growing world war.  There was an interesting comment, somewhere along the way, made by a woman in Alabama, that many Americans knew what Hitler was doing – at least insofar as attacking Poland and France – and they did not like him in 1941.   While consciousness of the Holocaust was still yet to emerge, the film makes the point that fighting Germany and Japan and Italy was understood as a just war, not only because the US had been attacked and war had been declared against it, but also because the attackers were killing innocent people and rapaciously expanding their power.

     To some degree, the same thing could be said about Iraq in 2003.  Saddam Husssein was obviously treating the people of Iraq terribly.  He was a tyrant.  And that might have justified a war against him.  But what comes across so clearly in "No End in Sight" is just how deceitful and arrogant and, ultimately, strategically stupid, the Bush administration was.  And in that failure it is obvious that Iraq is really not a necessary war; it is an unnecessary war.

     That is where Mencius comes in.  He is generally against war, concerned about the obvious injustices that arise when any sort of violence or killing is used to promote state interests.  But there is a notion of just war in his writing.  What makes a war just is not merely the existence of tyranny in the country to be attacked, but also the existence of just and wise rule in the country doing the attacking.  Here is a long quote that gets at this idea:

When T’ang lived in Po…, Po bordered on Ko, which had a ruler who was dissolute and neglected the sacrifices.  When T’ang sent someone to ask why the sacrifices were being neglected, Ko’s ruler said; "We don’t have enough animals."  T’ang sent him cattle and sheep, but instead of using them for sacrifices, he used them for food.

Again, T’ang sent someone to ask whey the sacrifices were being neglected, and the Ko ruler said: "We don’t have enough millet." So T’ang sent Po people to help plow and plant, he sent gifts of food for the old and young.  But the Ko ruler ambushed them: he led his people out to steal their wine and food, millet and rice.  Anyone who resisted was killed: even a boy brining millet and meat was killed and his gifts stolen.

…And when T’ang sent an army to avenge the murder of this boy, everyone within the four seas said: "It isn’t lust for all beneath Heaven: it’s revenge for the abuse of common men and women."

…After eleven expeditions, he hadn’t an enemy left anywhere in all beneath Heaven.  When he marched east, the western tribes complained.  And when he marched south, the northern tribes complained: "Why does he leave us for last?" People watched for him the way they watch for rain in the midst of a great drought.  When he came, they went to the market unhindered again and weeded their fields without interference.  He punished the rulers and comforted the people, like rain falling in its season.  And so a great joy rose among the people.

     So, Ko’s war on Po was just.  It was just because the ruler of Po was clearly an immoral tyrant, not doing the right thing by the sacrifices and repressing his people.  But his behavior and attitude are not the only thing that made war against him just.  T’ang, the ruler of Ko, was acting with the best intentions: he was concerned about the sacrifices; he tried to help in various ways; and his turn to war was truly the last resort after a particularly bad provocation.  And one more thing made this war just: once he attacked, T’ang made sure that the right thing was done; security was provided to the people of Po and they were able to return to trade and farming, the basis of social prosperity and harmony.

     Now, we can argue about whether US intentions in WWII were altruistic or selfish.  My own sense is that America was acting on its own interests, and, in this case, those interests happened to align with broader humanitarian goals.  The war was necessary strategically and morally, and that is why it enjoyed such widespread social support, and why the new and untested American military fought so hard and effectively.  Also, when the fighting was done, the US did the right thing (again, this was nested in selfish strategic interests) and worked hard to provide security and prosperity for Europe, including the erstwhile enemy Germany, and Japan.

     None of this can be said of the US war against Iraq.  While there were loud pre-war, pro-war cries of "tyranny" on the part of Hussein (a defensible characterization) and "freedom and democracy and prosperity" on the part of the US, it is not at all clear that these were the real reasons or intentions behind the war.  After being reminded by "No End in Sight" of the pre-war hype and hoopla and the "post-major-combat-operations" failures, it is hard to believe that Bush and company really meant it when they said they had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.  It is more plausible that they wanted to use Iraq to demonstrate American military power to the world, to get out from under the "Vietnam syndrome," and to cement US primacy in international politics.  In short, it was not about Iraqi people, it was about American power.

    Now, it could also be argued that WWII was about American power.  FDR had wanted to get in the fight earlier.  Strategic thinkers were no doubt worried about the rise of Germany and Japan.  But the critical difference was that the US was restrained for a time, trying to find other means of diplomatically and economically responding to the growing world crisis before moving to war.  And when war was decided upon it was followed by efforts to relieve the suffering that had been created. 

     In both of these ways, restraint and relief, the Bush administration failed in Iraq.  War had already been decided upon before the charade of going to the UN.  And Iraq now has no relief, and is unlikely to find any under American occupation.   

      Mencius would disapprove.  And the only thing that can be said, in the end, is: Bush Lost the War.