(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Preventive Definitions of "Imminent"
10/11/2003

The gulf between Americans is growing, perhaps to irreconcilable lengths. For one side, evidence of WMD programs in Iraq is already sufficient to prove the war justified. For the other side, a (prematurely declared) lack of "stockpiles" is evidence that the war was not justified. This discrepancy can be explained, I think, by exploring the shift in the practical definition of "imminent."

Before the war, "imminent" meant that there was a plan underway, and the only justified action would be that which stopped a hammer that was already falling. The pre-war, anti-war argument was, essentially:

Saddam Hussein probably has WMDs, and he may or may not have links to terrorists. But there is no evidence that he is currently putting into action a plan of attack, so there is time, yet, to let the inspections "run their course." Attack is not imminent, and there are still other strategies for disarming Hussein, even if they will take time.

The response to this was that, given the nature of WMDs and the reality of international suicide-willing terrorists, we could not wait until attack was imminent. In fact, the President used this very language in his State of the Union. Others (Condi Rice, I think) suggested that the first proof of "imminence" could be a mushroom cloud. For my part, I suggested that "imminence," for the purposes of Just War Theory, should be extended backwards to mean something more like a combination of "intent," "willingness," and medium-term "capability."

By these definitions, the anti-war people insisted on something that nobody was claiming: a WMD warhead on a long-range missile pointed at Washington (or something similar). To be sure, the argument was made that we had no way of knowing whether such was the case, only with a jar of biological agent and a terrorist acting as the missile. However, beyond speculation, pro-war folks insisted merely on the method of delivery (e.g., terrorists, who would also serve to disguise the origin of the attack) and evidence of maintenance of and/or continued efforts to acquire a "payload."

Obviously, to a person who took this pro-war stance, even nothing more than evidence that Hussein had fostered a relationship with terrorists and was prepared to head full speed toward WMD capability as soon as possible is enough (particularly combined with the recollection that before war became an issue, the anti-war voices were calling for an end to sanctions). However, for the anti-war side, the definition of "imminence" has shifted to mean "possessed the weapons." With this new definition, they've reviewed all of the administration's pre-war comments and pulled out every statement that we knew weapons to exist in Iraq, pointed their fingers at those statements, and declared that the administration had argued that imminence existed.

As it happens, this new definition isn't far from that which I suggested before the war. The significant difference is that the anti-war crowd seeks to preserve at least "imminent capability" so as to elevate the existence of stockpiles to the level of decisiveness. They must do so, because this is the one pre-war pro-war argument that is still up in the air. And they must fail in making this argument stick, because allowing that doubt to seep into our national psyche could undermine the most important post-war endeavor: making Iraq into a free, prosperous, and friendly nation.

So why would such people play semantic games when the stakes are so high? For some, it's entirely political. For some, it's to maintain belief in the moral credibility of a treasured institution (sadly, this includes my own Church). But mainly, I think the reason is that it must be a painful thing for people who see themselves as compassionate to realize, deep down, that if the administration had listened to them, Saddam's thugs would still be free to walk into any home in Iraq and gouge out the eyes of an infant because her daddy wasn't lying well enough.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 05:04 PM EST