Justin from Southern Appeal has a solid perspective...

...On Iraq. On what those in favor of the war should be asking about what constitutes victory. Check it out here.

He wants a simple answer:

The question I still have for this administration, however, is: what exactly do you mean when you say that "we will leave when the job is done?" We war supporters have let Bush off the hook on this particular question. Give us something tangible; something that once accomplished, we can say for sure, "this is what we came to do and we've done it to the best of our ability. Good luck. We're always here if something else comes up."

I'm ambivelant on Iraq. Always have been. I did not see a causus belli for invading Iraq. No, that's not the standard anti-war schtick. They have no room in their worldview for a just war. As a Catholic, I do. And according to just war criteria, the following conditions must be met:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good

Now, in our democratic republic, the ones that have responsibility for the common good in regards to war are the President of the United States, aided by his administration, and the United States Congress, alone among the branches of government authorized to declare war. Fair enough. In our system of government, however, these leaders are accountable to the people. Thus, the responsibility for the manner in which they act for the common good ultimately rests in the people's hands. I'm one of those citizens. Therefore, I must come to my own prudential judgement as to whether or not the Iraq war met the just causus belli of Just War Teachings. I've done that, and I've concluded that it did not.

This is not to say Saddam Hussain was a good guy that would still be in power if it was up to me. Please, spare me the Hannitization of America tour. Be Foolish, if you will. Look at the facts. Did we have evidence that weapons were about to switch hands from Hussein to Al Qada? We did not. Did we have evidence that there were weapons? While we did at the time--as did Clinton's administration and most of the world's intelligence agencies--that intelligence proved to be unsubstantiated. No weapons have been found. Therefore, criteria one has not been met.

Did we seek UN Security Council resolutions to address Mr. Hussein's defiance regarding UN weapons inspections. Yes. 17 times, in fact. That includes the last one, resolution 1441. Might a mandatory last-chance regiment of inspections resolved the difficulty? Perhap. Perhaps not. On the other hand, lacking an immediate threat to our security, The US may have had the opportunity to try one last time. All in all, perhaps this part of the criteria might have been met.

Did we have a secure invasion plan? Absolutely. Baghdad toppled within two weeks is as strong a plan as one could hope for. Did we have an effective plan to secure the peace? Here, things get dicey. Iraq's US Administrator, L. Paul Bremmer, made a huge mistake when he ordered the disbanding of the entire Iraqi army and a blanket ban on all Bath party members. It's not a wise thing to make experienced war commanders and soldiers unemployed and unemployable. They tend to resent the one doing both. Hence, a possibly strong contingent of the insurgency needlessly came into being. A lack of intelligence, as well as difficulty developing rapport with tribal leaders, led to difficulty in fighting a guerilla war against the insurgence. This has claimed many civilian lives, especially as the Al quada blood-lusters crossed the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran. Lastly, whatever political framework had been put into play yielded amazing fruit in January 2005. This immense victory, unfortunately, quickly became ecliped by months of political in-fighting and regional distrust. Too much time passed before an interim government sat. This gave the insurgency way too much time to recover from their politically suicidal situation. All in all, there may have been serious prospects for success, but a good deal of stumbling on the part of the US Administration of Iraq has put much of this in question.

As too whether or not the use of arms has produced graver evils than the evil to be eliminated? Well, that condition is the easiest to assess. Saddam Hussein butchered his people on a regular basis. Thousands died under his Stalinist-inspired administration. This included the gassing of Kurds and Shia muslims before and after the Persian Gulf War. Countless others died horribly at the hands of his internal security and intelligence forces. To make matters worse, he took a vibrant economy and ran it into the ground. Corruption, incompetence and self-agrandizement--not to mention two self-destructive wars that won the people of Iraq nothing--crippled any opportunities for anyone to grow financially. Unless they were Saddam's buddies, and he didn't feel like killing them. The Oil-For-Food scandal proved how little UN Sanctions meant to him or what he intended to do about the suffering of his people. There's no question that the Iraqis are better off without him. Even with the bombings and killings, Iraq suffers less evils today than it did under Hussein.

Would that meeting two criteria were enough. Catholic Just War Theory calls for the meeting of all the conditions in order for a just Causus belli to exist, however. In my humble opinion, the US invasion and occupation did not fit that bill.

HOWEVER!

It's done. The invasion has been accomplished. An interim government has been elected and seated. This government requests the help of the United States and the allies that deposed Saddam Hussein. Without that help, the country will be consumed by a bloody civil war that would unleash far greater evil than existed under the Butcher of Baghdad's reign of terror. It would be a betrayal of unspeakable proportions if The US left before the Iraqi people--and the government that they elected--could secure themselves from Hussein loyalists, disgruntled baathists and terrorists. We can't let that happen. Otherwise, we would disgrace ourselves for generations. In addition to that, we could forget about winning the war on terror. We would be fortunate if a score of 9/11s didn't strike us some time after such a shameful retreat. No, we must stay until the job is done.

I'm with Justin, though. When will the job be done? What will a finished job look like. This is what the American people want to know. If the President does not start delivering this answer soon, he may not be given the opportunity to do so later. The people themselves may demand, in masse, that the US pull out, whether the job is done or not. That would be a tragic mistake. It's one I hope this administration will not make.