has said about afghanistan to final a moral framework for that evaluation. you have been critical of the president for not having a well-defined philosophy of war the he did talk about just war in that speech. has he effectively made the case for what we are trying to accomplish in afghanistan and how it fits into the framework. what you see with the president is a repeated emphasis on the necessity of winning the war in afghanistan the he referred to it as a war of necessity, a war that was forced on us, a war we have no choice but who win. but at the same time that he insists on that view, he has also taken the view that on the other hand we are going to be out by 2014. you really can t do both. you have to have a view either this is a war that is crucial to win, in which case you go all in, or a war that was a great mistake, of course you begin a serious way to withdraw. i think the president ought to choose one of those two courses as it were. the oslo speech he accepted
evils. that is a remarkably important observation. i think it is correct the but does that take you to a conclusion that you would torture somebody to get the evidence to stop a bomb from going off, this sort of quintessential morality choice that professors love to play with. i wouldn t do it. i am an absolutist on torture. i think you never do it. people who believe there is a reasonable scale up to things like that they re making an important argument. we ought to have the conversation, conversations like that.condemning. you have a conversation about the role of human intelligence. which is essential. if you are going to rank evils haven t you said you need to rank the relative evil of torture against one individual versus the cataclysm of mass murder? i think that s right. basically right. i emphasize i wouldn t do it. i would be against it in all circumstances. i think someone that doesn t take that view. it is not a wicked view, evil
historical and current rationale for just war which is sometimes a difficult concept for people. but what theory of just war now would apply to afghanistan as the president articulated. its it any longer a war of self defense in your view? that its a fair question. the president said a just war has to be a war that is a last resort and is for a just cause. part of the just war theory. it is a very important part. and i think that the question whether afghanistan fits that definition, which is something all of us have strong opinions on is exactly the kind of question that i think we need to be debating. we don t debate enough. the ideal i think is to find ways to talk about issues of war and peace without resorting to kind of effort to gain partisan advantage all the time. there used to be the idea that politics stops at the water edge. not saying, you should oppose a war.
must fight as president obama has said about afghanistan to final a moral framework for that evaluation. you have been critical of the president for not having a well-defined philosophy of war the he did talk about just war in that speech. has he effectively made the case for what we are trying to accomplish in afghanistan and how it fits into the framework. what you see with the president is a repeated emphasis on the necessity of winning the war in afghanistan the he referred to it as a war of necessity, a war that was forced on us, a war we have no choice but who win. but at the same time that he insists on that view, he has also taken the view that on the other hand we are going to be out by 2014. you really can t do both. you have to have a view either this is a war that is crucial to win, in which case you go all in, or a war that was a great mistake, of course you begin a serious way to withdraw. i think the president ought to choose one of those two courses as it were. th