February 18, 2003

• Just War -

  
  

  Whenever I see the phrase "Just War" it strikes me as odd.  The word "just" more readily takes me down the path of "merely war, only war, or simply war."  Of course, these three alternatives are not what is meant by the use of the word "just."  But, for a moment, think of what our response might be if politicians spoke in these terms.  Would we not be offended?  Would we not oppose a mindset that saw war as a mere tactic, efficient option, or simple solution?

  
  

  Honestly, I'm not certain that our conscience isn't so rough and calloused that we would automatically speak out against such.  At this dawn of the third millennium, we don't seem to think through the implications of the language being used to define our world and our options.  I fear that many have lost the ability to understand that long-range, cultural shifts begin with slight degrees of movement away from previous norms.

  
  

  I grew up in the 1970's.  Through my window on the world, I watched in anxiety as Nixon opened relations with China.  I saw my President stand with his hands on each of their shoulders as Menachim Begin shook hands with Anwar Sadat.  I listened to the debate as we approached the decision to return control of the Panama Canal to Panama almost 20 years ahead of schedule.  I puzzled over the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty.  These events among many others shaped my understanding of what it means to be an American on the global stage.

  
  

  With great power comes great responsibility.  We do not have the option of standing back, isolated from the cares and concerns of our global friends and allies.  We may not profit from the resources of the poor.  Our military philosophy is predicated upon the other side making the "first strike."  Remember that?  Remember the days of knowing that "first strike" capability was a negotiating tool?  Did it frighten you to know that if there were ever to be a nuclear war we'd be fighting as the remnants of a nation that had already been hit?  In practical essence, the treaties we signed and the deals we negotiated assured that we would never use our nuclear arsenal.  We didn't give ourselves the option.

  
  

  Why would we do that?  In a world where we were surrounded by enemies who had the capacity to utterly annihilate us, why would we tie our hands that way?  We did it for one reason only.  We subscribed to the philosophy of the "just war."  In this sense I'm using the word as it is hoped we will understand it when it is used by the President and his advisors.  But, they mean something entirely different by "just war" than the term has been historically understood.

  
  

  Augustine, Archbishiop of Hippo first articulated the Just War philosophy as the Roman Empire was falling into ruins at the hands of the Goths and Visigoths.  For over a century since Constantine had adopted Christianity as the state religion, the charge was levied that Christians could not be good citizens.  Their pacifist commitment forbad their entering the army or bearing arms. For Augustine, war came as a logical extension of Civil Government, and Civil Government comes, as St Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-7, by the ordination of God.  However, just as moral checks exist in other realms of government, not every war is morally justified.

  
  

  St Augustine outlined specific principles for determining whether the proposed action is a "Just War."  The first requirement is proper authority.  The leaders of nations are answerable to God for the welfare of the states they govern in a way that private citizens are not.  By this first principle, a private citizen who attacks with the methodology of warfare is not to be seen as a warring opponent, but a criminal. 

  
  

  The second requirement for a Just War is proper cause.  Augustine specifically excluded as proper cause, "the desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, and the lust for dominating."  In essence, proper cause boils down to one thing and one thing only, self defense. 

  
  

  The third principle of Just War is reasonable chance of success.  Even if there exists proper authority and cause, human life is simply too precious to spend soldiers in a fight they cannot win. 

  
  

  The fourth principle of Just War is proportionality.  Authorities must make all reasonable efforts to assure that the damage caused by their response to aggressgion does not exceed the aggression itself.  Annihilating an enemy in response to an attack against one of your cities is an example of disproportion. 

  
  

  The present strategy to equate the "preemptive strike" with "self-defense" is one that has been rejected through 1600 years of the application of the Just War principles.  Perhaps the best recent argument against the preemptive strike was the film "Minority Report."  Did you see it?  It's a futuristic thriller that has a police department dedicated to arresting persons before they commit murder.  Thousands of people who have never harmed anyone are imprisoned as a preemptive measure.  But, as Tom Cruise's character learns when his own name comes up for arrest, the fact that you might commit a crime doesn't mean that you will commit a crime. 

  
  

  Humanity is both blessed and cursed by free will.  We have and do make real choices every day.  The preemptive strike is a denial of human free will in favor of determination.  Preemption says that there is no choice, information shared will inevitably be misused, the misuse of information will inevitably lead to weapon development, and the weapon developed will inevitably be used.  In the case specifically of Iraq, it says that weapons the world community tolerated as long as they were turned against foes we tacitly condoned, (Iran and the minority peoples of Iraq) will no longer be tolerated.  When Sadam Hussein's Republican Guard invaded Kuwait, he forced the world community to act.  In the Gulf War, a coallition force made up of nations with various treaties and economic relationships to Kuwait came together and acted in defense of an attacked ally.  This clearly falls under the second principle of proper cause.  12 years later, the situation has changed.  Iraq has been devasted by destruction, sanction and embargo.  It no longer fields a massive army.  It has made no aggressive move.  

  
  

  Many Americans are frustrated by the lack of support in the world community for military action against Iraq.  The charges and namecalling hurled by the American press against France, Germany, Russia, and others are simply unjustified.  The bone of contention at this time is that Sadam Hussein has failed to satisfy the international community that he is in compliance with disarmament.  Clearly, action is called for.  But, it is the responsibility of those who would press for war to establish that Iraq poses an immediate threat.  IF Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, (clearly a violation of UN resolutions and terms of cease fire requiring international response,) such possession is not proof that Iraq has immediate aggressive intentions.  At this time there is no proof that such weapons even exist.  As long as we have alternatives to war, they must be employed.  Even if the alternatives are exhausted, we may not automatically bring war against a state that has not made an aggressive move in over a decade.  We may correctly view Sadam Hussein as a ruthless, vicious, and evil dictator, but his deplorable character does not constitute proper cause for waging war on the nation he leads. 

  
  

  I very much fear that leaders in Washington are ignoring the philosophy of Just War which led us to the Geneva Conventions, rules for proper treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of conscientious objectors, and the War Crimes Tribunal in Hague.  Instead they use the term Just War to mean that military action may be employed to put an end to an irritating man who is a rash on the butt of mankind. 

  
  

  When the minister in North Korea warned that they now possess "preemptive strike" capability, where do you think that he got that language?  The North Korean president is worried about attack from the one nation in the world that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt possesses weapons of mass destruction.  The North Korean government is so concerned about the possibility of attack that they are presently conducting air raid drills no fewer than three times per day.  The case that President Bush is building to justify action against Iraq has to be understood in the wider context of the world community.  It would be the ultimate irony if the very logic that President Bush is using to persuade the world to his cause, becomes the line of reasoning that another foe might use to justify a preemptive strike against us. 

  • 9:49 am
  • 19 Comments