PT and the problem of choice: Jedi, Clones and war!

Ah, very important questions these are.

Taking sides in an internal conflict within the Republic, (i.e. Naboo vs. trade Federation) is against the Jedi's covenant with the Republic. Their job is just to facilitate agreements and maintain peace. But in the case of an external threat, like the Separatist Army, the Jedi will of course help as best they can in fighting to defend the Republic. However, this has not happened in any Jedi's lifetime during the PT era.

They didn't go to Geonosis to save Obi-Wan because they were attached to him, they just thought there was a chance to rescue him, so they tried. They also went to investigate the reports of the Droid Armies and to try to capture Dooku before a war broke out - in order to save the many in the galaxy who would suffer from the onset of a war.

Yes, the Republic needed the Clones due to being in a bind and a time crunch. And ethical questions arise around the use of clones.
But it's also important to keep in mind the Jedi hid the fact their inability to see the creation of the Clone Army, and thus their diminishing powers. This was partly for the sake of the Republic however, in that if the Jedi's enemies multiply, they won't be able to protect the Republic. All in all this means they served alongside an army they knew was created under mysterious circumstances.

These topics are currently being discussed in the thread titled PT And The Problem Of Choice. To facilitate conversation, I think I will move this there.

That's not all Lucas says:





No, that's not what is said. It's a covenant that the Jedi serve as mediators and can only protect. They can't take sides. Qui-Gon is tasked to protect the Queen, not fight for the Naboo.

And as Lucas explains:



By the time of AOTC, the senate, through the Chancellor, recruited the Jedi into the army and trusted them with the power and positions of command that they didn't have before. No covenant is being broken.



It's the act of starting a war, not of accepting the clones. The whole debate around the creation of an army is for the Republic to defend itself against the ever-growing separatists, but using an army when there hasn't been an attack is something that will hardly pass. That's why Padmé is fighting against the creation of an army. Not because the army itself, but because it would signal to the Separatists the intention of a military offensive against them, and they would react accordingly.

The problem is that Obi-Wan eventually saw and overheard that not only the Separatists already had armies ready but that they were planning to attack the Republic. In other words, war was coming, wether people liked it or not.

That's why the senate votes to give the emergency powers to Palpatine.



Of course. That's was the entire point of Palpatine's plan and his manufactured crisis.



That's not what happened. The Jedi sent only Jedi to rescue Obi-Wan. Palpatine sent Yoda and the clones to Geonosis to stop the droid armies and (as far as the Jedi are concerned) end a war before it starts and spreads out. Unfortunately that didn't happen.



That doesn't mean that the Jedi can't fight in a war in defense of the Republic. What Mace is explaining to Palpatine is that the Republic can't count on the Jedi alone for their military needs. That it's not what the Jedi were designed to do, and that they don't have the numbers either.

How do you figure that the covenant refers to not picking sides as opposed to not fighting in wars? To me Sidious seems to reiterate Qui-Gon's words when he says "I can only protect you, I can't fight a war for you."

It is a reiteration of the same point. What I'm saying is that the covenant is the role of the Jedi as servants of the senate. Their role is as keepers of peace and justice, as mediators in conflict, as diplomats. They can't act in any other way since that's not the agreement they have with the senate. As Mace tells Qui-Gon in the script:





No, he doesn't. In fact, he argues against it. All he says is that some Jedi feel that way, he doesn't endorse that stance.



The Jedi use violence as a last resort, but they do use it and are trained to. They are not pacifists, they are keepers of the peace and enforcers of justice.

And no, they are not different from Padmé or anyone else when it comes to balancing values with pragmatism. Everyone can be (and usually is) forced into a situation where one's values are tested.



Yoda says that a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, not attack. He doesn't say that a Jedi doesn't attack. And the Jedi didn't attack first on Geonosis either, they were attacked. The Republic was the one who attacked, and rightfully so considering what was happening.

It's the manipulation behind the scenes by the Sith that is the issue. Not those who do the best they can under the circumstances they are forced into. Be it the Jedi or anyone else.

He does endorse the Jedi's decision-making. It's made evident in his various comments about the issue.



Nowadays a lot of people like to point the finger at the Jedi (probably fueled by Filoni's diatribes on the topic), as if they did something wrong or craved war and be part of one. But none of that is supported by the movies or Lucas himself. They were just manipulated, like everyone else was.

He's not being critical, he's making a contrast to the activities and goals of the central characters (and with Palpatine). The Jedi Council rightfully decides test Anakin and not allow him to be trained due to his age and attachments, and it doesn't ignore the possibility of the Sith having returned, thus tasking Qui-Gon with discovering the identity of his attacker.

The guard at the gate is an "inactive force" in a story where the protagonist wants to go through it. That's not a criticism of the guard or his job, nor a defense of the idea that there shouldn't be a guard at the gate. It's just an illustration of the "barriers" that stop the protagonist in his tracks.

It's from the Star Wars Archives: Episodes I-III: 1999-2005 book. Here is the full page.

Another interesting quote from the same book is this one:



So going along with the other Jedi would make Qui-Gon "neutral". How are the Jedi neutral? Does this mean neutrality in a conflict like the Naboo invasion, or in general that the Jedi don't make moves one way or the other? Does this tie in with the "inactivity" from the other quote?

I get the impression that the Jedi were hampered by their allegiance to the corrupt and inactive senate, thus making the Jedi inactive and "neutral" as well. I believe the entire system of the Republic had stagnated, and that the Jedi were not immune to it, even though they always had the right intentions. Dooku claims that Qui-Gon knew about the corruption in the senate, so it makes sense that he would rebel against the Council that is subservient to the senate. Qui-Gon's conviction is to do good according to the Will of the Force, even if it means stepping out of line with the Council.