Afstan: A "war of necessity"?

Robert Kagan has his doubts--conclusion of a piece in the Washington Post (it seems to me that Canadians have related moral scruples--wanting UN sanction/cover for military action, and then not considering it enough in Afstan):

The President and the 'Necessary War' Myth
...
The fact is, unless the nation is invaded or its very survival is imminently threatened, going to war is always a choice. So what is the point of trying to make this elusive distinction anyway? For many, including Obama, the present purpose is to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, Obama's "good" war from George W. Bush's "bad" war. But it won't work. As Haass correctly argues, right or wrong, they were both wars of choice.

But there is a deeper reason, as well, for Obama to claim necessity in Afghanistan. It is part of what increasingly seems to be a striving for moral purity in international affairs by this administration. Obama and his top advisers apologize for America's past sins, implicitly suggesting they will commit no new ones. And that goes for fighting wars. No one can blame you for fighting a war if it is a war of necessity, or so they may believe. All the inevitable ancillary casualties of war -- from civilian deaths to the occasional misbehavior of the troops to the errors of commanders -- are more easily forgiven if one has no choice. The claim of necessity wipes away the moral ambiguities inherent in the exercise of power. And it prevents scrutiny of one's own motives, which in nations, as in individuals, are rarely pure.

This hoped-for escape from moral burdens is, however, an illusion. Just because America declares something necessary doesn't mean that the rest of the world, and especially its victims, will believe it is just. The claim of necessity will not absolve the United States, and Obama, from responsibility for its actions.

As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out long ago, Americans find it hard to acknowledge this moral ambiguity of power. They are reluctant to face the fact that it is only through the morally ambiguous exercise of their power that any good can be accomplished. Obama is right to be prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, and he should do so even more vigorously. But he will not avoid the moral and practical burdens of fighting this war by claiming he has no choice. An action can be right or just without being necessary. Like great presidents in the past, Barack Obama will have to explain why his choice, while difficult and fraught with complexity, is right and better than the alternatives.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

I think one could argue that no Canadian war since 1867 has been one of necessity--except World War II and in 1939 it did not actually appear to be one. A relevant post:

Thinking about Afstan

Meanwhile:

Well, it could have been worse
Intimidation, attacks and disenchantment suppressed turnout but did not abort voting

The Election [impassioned yet reasoned post by Brian at The Canada-Afghanistan Blog]

Marines Fight Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans

Update thoughts: An amplification of Mr Kagan's analysis: I think that in Western countries it has come be widely accepted that war/combat is somehow illegitimate save in the direst circumstances--Mr Kagan's definition of a true "necessary war". Moreover Western societies seem increasingly unwilling to accept casualty levels in conflict that are risible by any historical standard.

Over the next one or two centuries the above realities (if so they be) bear rather badly for the future of our societies. Given: 1) our demographic decline; and 2) human nature as seen through history. Since many people in other societies still believe in the "strong horse" ("..when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse..."). As we once did, also believing in our own (for want of a better word) righteousness--severely undermined by events and behaviour in Europe during the first half of the twentieth century.

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King said this in October 1939, just under 80 years ago; how far we have come (source website):

Canada is engaged in a war which is a crusade to save Christian civiilization and the
liberty of mankind, Prime Minister Mackenzie King declared in a radio address last night.

The present struggle, he asserted, is for the preservation not alone of national and personal freedom but of freedom also of the mind and of the soul .

Stating he had always had a positive hatred of war, Premier King, said no other course but the overthrow by arms of Nazi Germany would prevent Naziism extending its tyrannical power over all nations and descent of the whole world into a new and terrible age of barbarism...

We're certainly not now facing Hitler or anything similar. But we have lost faith in ourselves.