As readers of this blog know, I am not enamored of many Bush Administration policies, but I am a supporter of the Administration’s overall policy in prosecuting the war against the radical Islamic fascists despite the fact that the Administration has made tactical errors and not always presented the proper case for the war. Apart from the disingenuousness reflected by his his questionable record on defense matters generally, my sense is that Mr. Kerry’s criticism of the Administration’s war policy is somewhat akin to sniping at FDR’s decision to invade North Africa early in World War II rather than opening up the key European front or confronting the Japanese directly in the South Pacific.
However, what really underlies Mr. Kerry’s criticism of the war against the radical Islamic fascists is the belief that this is not truly a just war. Addressing that issue head on in this recent review of Jean Bethke Elshtain‘s book, Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, one of my favorite political philosophy professors — the Reverend James V. Schall of Georgetown University — persuasively refutes those who argue against the morality of the Bush Administration’s decision to wage war on the radical Islamic fascists:

The last time we were up in arms, so to speak, about “just war” was when we were all overly wrought about nuclear proliferation, piously denying that deterrence could not work. Little did we know at the time that this nuclear worry, with all its subtle distinctions, would not be our most pressing war problem a few decades later?unless the terrorists get nuclear weapons, which they well might. The latter possibility makes it even more immoral not to do all we can to stop them now.

Professor Schall then addresses the muddled thinking of those who rationalize inaction in the face of pure evil:

A surprisingly few determined Muslims, none poor or uneducated, have made every airport and public building in the world a potential inferno, one at a time. They have made every airport and train station, most public buildings, small armed camps on constant look out for disaster. The “suicide bomber” turns out to be more dangerous by far than Soviet missiles. And instead of international outrage at the very idea of religious sources encouraging this suicide weapon, we even have those who claim it might be “justified” for sociological reasons. We are in danger of losing sight of common-sense principles: “The best preparation for peace,” it used to be said, “is to prepare for war.” The trick is to know what kind of a war is before us. All nations have a record of preparing diligently for the last war. This book warns against that sort of preparation.

. . . [C]ertain types of ideological and religious mind will not stop their aggression unless their minds are changed voluntarily or unless they are taken out before they carry out their plans. We do not like to hear this. We are little prepared with our own tolerant ideology even to imagine such minds. But they exist and to deny it is a form of blindness. Elshtain does not deny their existence. We are “ecumenical” at our peril when we fail to engage in debates about suicide bombings. The killing of the innocent by this terrible method is more than just the killing of the innocent. It is the bankruptcy of a theology that supports it, a proof that it cannot be true.

Professor Schall notes that the main problem is in the nature of Islam itself, something that the liberal West is loathe to admit:

This endeavor requires a much more careful look at Islam and its long, disturbing record than many would like to face. It is not that there are no “peaceful” Muslims, but as Elshtain recognizes, even the peaceful ones are under threat in their own world from those more bent on pursuing the ancient Islamic goal of world domination usually by military means. What most of us, with our more liberal bent, are loathe to admit, is that any historical movement can seek century after century to pursue a single goal of world domination. Our memories are shorter than many Muslim visionaries.
Belloc, in his writings on Islam, understood this likelihood, this persistency over time. We have to have a certain begrudging admiration, as well as fear, for this determination. But it is an aberration and needs to be called such. Moreover the lack of freedom and independence within actual Muslim societies needs to be much more honestly faced and described. Few are willing to recall that Europe is not Muslim today because it was stopped in France and before Vienna by the sword. At bottom, the Crusades were classic defensive war against an aggressive power, without which Europe would have been absorbed centuries ago.

And although good intelligence is the first line of defense, the will to exercise force remains the key to overcoming “the determined wrath of wrongdoers:”

But though the first line of defense is intelligence in the sense of knowing the enemy, the situation, we need force. We cannot doubt that some individuals and movements cannot be stopped except by force. Force means army, navy, air power, technology, and above all will and brains. But it also means intention. It cannot be lost in legalities or institutions that prevent action on an immediate danger. If there is anything new about this situation, it is found in the very title of the Elshtain book, Just War Against Terror. Something can and must be done about terror, beginning with its proper identification as to its source and cause. This “doing something” requires that potential threats be stopped where they are by armed force acting justly.

Professor Schall concludes by noting that, lest we forget, another 9/11-type attack can happen:

[More radical Islamic terrorist attacks] can happen again, are intended to happen again, and that they not only can be stopped, but can be stopped morally. The fact is, since 9/11, because of our military and security efforts, terrorists have been stopped. All we do not know is the full record of this success that has saved things we cannot imagine, as we can now imagine the World Trade Center destroyed. This prevention, after all, is the purpose of the “sword”?”he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” Jean Elshtain understands this use of mind and force and her book is a comfort for those who, in honor and justice, have to carry out, often at the cost of their lives, the rugged work that prevents the determined wrath of the wrongdoers from falling on us all.

Read the entire piece. And here is Professor Schall’s website.