This is the direction Wiegel leans with this fantastic “observation”:
Yet, he concedes, itâ€™s not completely beyond the realm of moral and political possibility that â€œa misguided military intervention or a preventive war fought before its time might nonetheless end with the displacement of a brutal regime and the construction of a decent one.â€
Wiegel suggests that “even if we did screw up” , it was still “moral” because of SOME ends
Then, he adds:
Right intention is a specification of a legitimate public authorityâ€™s duty to do what is good, which in the case of war does not end with repelling evil but includes the duty to build the peace of tranquillitas ordinis, the peace of a just public order.
I’m sorry , but this sounds disturbingly close to an attempt to keep intact the idea of Bush being “rightly intended” even if he is misinformed. The mounds of evidence uncovered since the invasion as to how “cooked” this “evidence” was, and what dissenting opinions and outright rejection of key bits of “evidence” used as the lynchpins of the arguments for war make this “misinformed” defense quite unacceptable. And the “intent” , if a leader is to be given a moral free pass because he is unable (or unwilling) to sway from the “winds of wisdom” currently blowing, falls far short of “acceptable” even the most simplified reading of just war theory.
Jesus does not even approach the “just war” type of thought. He simply describes a way of life that makes it inconceivable to kill for some theory or presumed good. Killing IS the antithesis of the good that is the goal. Anything short of “loving our enemies” makes it possible to argue our way into the world where whatever suits us is fair and acceptable, and just “common sense”.
Source: FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life