Some Context

Many of you have noticed that I have been much louder than usual over the past week regarding my criticism of President Trump. It’s no secret that I have always been opposed to Trump as a politician, but the events of last weekend were, in my view, of a radically different kind. This post is my attempt to clarify what changed.

Just War Theory

I am a staunch advocate of Just War Theory. Tons of great resources are available online that explain the basics, but I will summarize just a few key points here.

In brief, Just War Theory states that there are times when it is morally permissible to fight a war, but there are stringent rules in place that govern when and how war may be fought.

When War is Allowed (Jus Ad Bellum, Just Cause for War)

In order to have Just Cause, a war must be undertaken:

• For the right kinds of reasons
• Proportionally to what is at stake
• As a last resort
• By a legitimate authority

How to Fight a War (Jus in Bello, Just Means of Warfare)

In order for a war to be fought with Just Means, it must:

• Never intentionally target non-combatants
• Kill and/or destroy only as necessary
• Kill and/or destroy only proportional to what is at stake

Trump vs Iran (January 2020)

With Just War Theory (JWT) in scope, let us consider two questions.

Question 1: Was Trump justified in killing General Soleimani?

Maybe. (But probably not.)

There is no doubt that if we were already at war with Iran, General Soleimani would (at least in principle) count as a legitimate military target. But, thankfully, we are not (yet) at war with Iran.

Let’s see if we can establish Just Cause:

1. War must be undertaken for the right kinds of reasons

Historically, JWT allowed for only one legitimate reason: self-defense.

That justification was naturally extended to the defense of allies who were defending themselves, but only if an attack had already occurred. It was never permitted to start a war, only to recognize that one had been started.

More recently, Just War theorists have tended to allow the justification of pre-emptive strikes. The main reason for this shift was the rise of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Especially when facing the threat of nuclear annihilation, one can see how prevention would be the only satisfying form of self-defense.

But this is dangerous territory. Pre-emption requires knowledge of the future, and that is hard to come by. The Iraq War began in 2003 (with bi-partisan Congressional support) under the justification that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. History has shown that he did not. If this was an honest mistake, then the Iraq War can be thought of as an accidental moral lapse. If we should have known better (which most scholars now believe), then we started a war without Just Cause.

Trump has justified the Soleimani killing as a pre-emptive strike to prevent an immanent attack on US citizens. We don’t yet know enough to determine if the evidence for this was sufficient. To date, no sufficient evidence has been offered, and there are warning signs that Trump acted impulsively with nothing close to sufficient evidence. Time will tell.

2. War must be undertaken proportionally to what is at stake

Essentially, the costs of a war must be justified by its benefits. We must not undertake courses of action that will end many thousands, millions, or even billions of lives except to prevent some comparable evil.

This strikes me as the strongest objection to the Soleimani killing.

I’m aware that many people (including Iranians like the author of this YouTube video), are happy that Soleimani is dead. That happiness might be justified in any number of ways. I honestly don’t know enough about Iran to say.

However, the US cannot take out every bad military or political leader, even if a substantial percentage of the people under their influence would rather see them removed.

The painfully obvious parallel is the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and was widely celebrated by Iraqis. But time has shown that those actions have led to near constant political instability and the rise of the Islamic State (aka ISIS).

3. War must be undertaken as a last resort

I can see no reason to believe that Trump had exhausted all other plausibly fruitful courses of action prior to killing Soleimani, an act which dramatically escalated the situation and could easily have lead to war.

4. War must be undertaken by a legitimate authority

Trump does have legal standing to undertake small-scale military actions without Congressional approval. However, the significance and danger of this particular action make it preferable that he obtain more support than he did.

Furthermore, the fact that so many of our global allies have condemned the killing undermines his authority in this case. The President’s military actions should always be undertaken with the understanding that they will be agreeable to our allies, even if we do not consult them first. Trump had no good reason to believe this.

Did Trump have Just Cause?

Probably not. If there really was strong evidence of a very serious, immanent attack, then maybe. But given the posturing we’ve seen from the Trump administration over the last few days, that seems extremely unlikely.

Question 2: Did President Trump commit an act of terrorism on Twitter?

Yes.

I understand that this question will strike some as ludicrous. And, admittedly, the paradigm cases of terrorism (plane hijackings, bus bombings, etc) look nothing like the actions that I will be criticizing.

However, the apparent dissimilarity is only at the surface level. Once we have an adequate understanding of what makes terrorism terrorism, and what makes terrorism especially bad, I will seek to demonstrate that Trump’s recent actions are fundamentally indefensible.

Defining Terrorism

As with Just War Theory, an awful lot has been written about the nature of terrorism.

For my purposes, I will adopt the following definition:

Terrorism is coercion by threat or use of force directed at non-combatants in order to achieve a political goal.

Since the principles governing Just Means strictly forbid the direct targeting of non-combatants, all forms of terrorism are forbidden by JWT.

The Offending Tweet

Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats! @realDonaldTrump, Jan 4

Assuming that Trump had Just Cause for military action, his threat to hit Iranian targets “VERY FAST AND VERY HARD”, needn’t be a problem. Sometimes the best way to minimize the overall harm caused by warfare is to rapidly overpower the enemy.

The real problem is that Trump threatened to hit targets important to “the Iranian culture”.

We don’t know exactly which 52 targets Trump actually had in mind. What we do know is how the global community interpreted this: as a direct threat on cherished, non-military, cultural sites.

Admittedly, the maximally charitable reading of Trump’s tweet might assume that all 52 sites were legitimate military targets, that also happened to have significant cultural value. But once the outrage started to pour in, Trump did not clarify his intent in this way.

Instead, he doubled down:

They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.

Like it or not, President Trump, it really does work that way.

Targeting a cultural site serves no legitimate military purpose. It is designed to create fear in the populace for political ends. It is an act of terrorism.

Furthermore, as the definition above makes clear, the actual use of force is not necessary for an act to be an instance of terrorism. The threat of such force is sufficient. We know this is true because hostage situations in which no act of violence ever occurs still count as acts of terrorism.

It takes very little imagination to see how Trump’s threat is terroristic. Simply imagine a case in which the United States were on the receiving end of a comparable threat. If ISIS made a credible threat to blow up the Statue of Liberty, this certainly would be labeled as terrorism, and offered as justification for pre-emptive military action to prevent it.

The Retraction

Thankfully, Trump did not attempt to carry out his threat.

If he had, I am fairly confident that someone in the chain of command would have refused to follow the order, since international and US law both clearly forbid the targeting of cultural sights.

Someone seems to have successfully explained this to Trump because he did (half-heartedly) retract his threat a few days later:

And you know what, if that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it — they kill our people. They blow up our people, then we have to be gentle with their cultural institutions. But I’m okay with it. It’s okay with me.

Conclusion

Every Islamic terrorist organization on the planet drives recruitment by fueling fear of the United States. Fear that our country is out to destroy Islam itself. Trump’s terroristic threat to destroy Iranian cultural sights confirms this suspicion, and now serves as public record that he has little to no personal concern for critical constraints on the methods of warfare.

In my view, this fundamentally disqualifies him as a politically legitimate leader. Those who support Republican policies should throw Trump under the bus and do whatever they can to distance themselves from his morally bankrupt disregard for the ethics of warfare.