“War is still the best way to combat war crimes”

That’s what Timothy Waters says in “What now for war trials after Milosevic?” Waters was part of the team that drafted the original indictment for the International Criminal Tribunal of Slobodan Milosevic (don’t RIP). Waters’ reflections are an appropriate footnote to today’s update of the President’s National Security Strategy. See here and here and here.

Waters writes that,

[H]opes were high that the architect of ethnic cleansing would face justice, and a definitive record of the war would be established…It’s hard to say he won, but clearly international law hasn’t….Tribunals have proliferated since the cold war, becoming the international community’s choice for responding to mass violence. In the process, law has crowded out other options….Claims that international courts deter violence, create a record, or promote reconciliation remain speculative.

What does Waters see as the priority?

The energy expended on tribunals might be better invested in building consensus on robust, timely intervention when crimes are being committed rather than seeking punishment afterward.

It’s understandable that Waters feels Milosevic cheated the hangman. However, nonetheless, relatively few countries in the world are prepared or willing to intervene militarily, whether in Iraq, Iran or Darfur, and the United Nations new improved Human Rights Council is a sham which can only be expected to keep a membership self-protective of despots and to continue demonizing Israel. So, that leaves only victors’ justice, however delivered, or continued injustice.

Even then, injustice alone – in a world rife with it - is not sufficient to warrant support, and to continue support, from Americans to spend its youth and fortune in war. As imperfect as a court may be, it’s less so than the inevitable costs and confusions of war, especially to those whose overriding priorities are avoiding confrontations with evil or in exploiting war-weariness for the next electoral self-interest. But, emotional or tired avoidance of the need for armed intervention, or idealistic or sophistic reliance on international opinion, that is infecting more of our discourse about Iraq, Iran, and other peril zones is not a responsible substitute for the need to confront the more dire alternatives of serious threats to our security.

The Fact Sheet summary of the President’s National Security Strategy that is presented today well sums this administration’s thinking and stance. Read it before reading MSM or blog treatments, favorable or critical.

There’s too much detail and richness of explanation in this very important document to rely on a media or blog summary. It will tell what to expect over the next 1 and 3-years, and much not to expect if Democrats assume power in either 2006 or 2008.

The choice is as clear as can be, and those who harp – from either side of the aisle – are not doing themselves, America, and the world a favor by forgetting or fogging the stakes.