Via the NYT: Vance Says the Pope Should Be More Careful When Talking About Theology.
Vice President JD Vance invoked World War II on Tuesday to defend the U.S. bombing of Iran from criticism by Pope Leo XIV, extending the Trump administration’s spat with the Catholic Church and underlining the White House’s struggle to justify an unpopular war.
Mr. Vance, who is Catholic, told a conservative audience at the University of Georgia that the pope was wrong to say that disciples of Christ are “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”
“Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis?” Mr. Vance said after referring to the pope’s comment. “I certainly think the answer is yes.”
As I have noted many times, if you have to go back to WWII to find the best example to justify contemporary military actions, you might want to pause and think about all the data you are ignoring to find an example that best fits your argument.
But the notion that the Vice President, an adult convert to Catholicism, should be lecturing the Pope on theology is rich. Moreover, to simply cite the best-case example for war is not a theological rebuttal. The Church makes a distinction between just and unjust wars. Further, it has historically been opposed to wars of choice or preemption.
For example, John Paul II, the anti-Communist Pope that Republicans tend to revere (at least the past), publicly criticized Bush’s war of choice in Iraq:
“NO TO WAR”! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences,” said John Paul II to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, when the war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq already started to fray. He tried every means at his disposal to stop U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration from a war he considered a threat not only to the Middle East but also to world order(source).
Here are the conditions of just war as listed on the website of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA:
- 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
FWIW, I have taught Just War Theory, although it has been a while. But let me note the following as it pertains to this list.
The first bullet point pretty much rules out preemptive war unless there is an actual, known threat that can only be stopped by launching an attack. This was not the case in regard to Iran.
In terms of the second bullet, note that negotiations were underway when the US decided to attack. By definition this condition for war was not met.
In regard to the third bullet, it remains utterly unclear if all of this disruption, death, and destruction is going to accomplish its goals (especially since those goals are poorly defined, to put it mildly).
And regarding the fourth point, since there was not an imminent threat and because the goals remain utterly unclear, it is hard to argue that the death that was dealt, not to mention the global economic pain that is possible, was worth the action. At the moment, we appear to be producing evils and disorders graver than the evil we attempted to eliminate.
Maybe the Vice President needs to step back and have a little think about all of this.
Side-note: this invocation of WWI reminds me of an NPR interview with John Bolton from the day the Iran war started:
INSKEEP: What do you say to Americans who look back on Iraq or Afghanistan or any number of examples and find that U.S. meddling in other countries has generally gone wrong?
BOLTON: Well, let’s start with Germany in 1945. I think our meddling in Germany worked out pretty well, particularly for the Germans. I think our meddling in Japan in 1945 and thereafter worked out pretty well.
Not only are we talking about events that are eight decades old, but there has also been a lot of other military activity, invasions, and attempts at regime change to draw from.
It is like saying that the Oklahoma Sooner won national titles back in the 70s with the wishbone offense, so let’s try that out now. It worked out pretty well for them!
It seems worth remembering that we waged total war against Germany and Japan as part of a large alliance. Moreover, we occupied those countries and then spent considerable amounts of money helping rebuild them (and all of Europe). Any discussion of how war brought peace and stability needs to look not just at the military actions, but the Marshall Plan, as well as the fact that we occupied Japan for roughly 7 years and Germany for roughly 10.
The notion that we simply beat them into submission, fixed things, and left is simply inaccurate.
Back to Bolton:
There’s a long history here. I think our overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a great success.
I think our biggest mistake there was withdrawing under the Trump agreement, then executed by Biden in 2021. And as for Iraq, I think the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that part of it went extremely well. I think our mistake – and it was a mistake – was to engage in nation-building thereafter and not turn responsibility for creating the new Iraqi government, leaving that with the Iraqi people themselves.
Here we see a number of things. First, yes, the military action in Afghanistan was a success. Our ability to construct a functional liberal, pro-US state after roughly two decades was an utter failure.
And how the WWII examples led him to assert that we should have left Iraq to its own devices is magical thinking of the highest order.
I would also steer readers to my post from last September: How WWII Affects Contemporary Thinking.
One passing thought: the time between now and the end of WWII is roughly similar to the gap between WWII and the US Civil War. Just a bit of trivia to further contemplate.
