Just War Theory

Remove all ads!

Not sure if any of you have studied Just War theory in philosophy, but looking at Iraq, I'm wondering if this can be called a Just War. The following is from an Article on the PCAnews website.

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1507502,00.html

Comments???

A War With Iraq - Is it Just?

By Brad Winsted

The just war theory does not justify war; instead it brings war under the control of justice.

As the days and hours tick down to our eventual confrontation with Iraq, we as Christians struggle with whether this is a just war or a case of superpower aggressiveness and impatience. Christians have divided seriously over the years on whether they should participate in fighting wars or "turn the other cheek and resist not evil" leaving vengeance solely to the Lord.
I have a special interest in the Middle East. I am a retired naval officer and served in the Middle East as a military attaché (Tunisia, NW Africa) in the early 1990s and on ships during naval exercises/deployments in the Persian Gulf. My daughter returned home from studying Arabic (she is almost fluent) and Middle Eastern Studies on January 24, 2003 after three years in the region and desires to be a missionary to the Muslims. A few months ago she was only a few miles away from the fatal shooting of Christian and Missionary Alliance missionary, Bonnie Witherall in Sidon, Lebanon. She was participating in a short term teaching project in a Palestinian refugee camp.

Historically, Christians have roughly divided on war-fighting into two camps. There are, of course gradations, along a continuum of active pacifism and isolation to active, preemptive "crusade" war fighting.

A dispensational/Anabaptist/ Mennonite /Amish view takes a generally pacifist view of war. There is a tendency on the part of these Christians to create separate communities, as isolated as possible from the world and its corrupt and evil systems. Since the end of this world and Christ's return will soon be here, there is no use in "polishing the brass on the sinking ship" (involvement with worldly things--government included). As a matter of fact, the very fact that there is a war going on might be good because this could be a clear biblical sign that the end is imminent and the new heavens and new earth are about to be set up.

These believers often reject participation in government sponsored (war) violence for the Christian because the Christian has Kingdom work to do (e.g., evangelism, building the church, and sanctification). The fighting in the Old Testament was another dispensation and is not for today. Today we are under the dispensation of God's church, love and grace. Therefore, we must strictly follow the words of Christ in turning from the sword and loving our enemies without resistance.

The Reformed tradition assumes that Christians and the church are definitely a part of the larger community. As distinctly Christian citizens we are to participate in the government and bring reformation to every aspect of society. Reformed people desire and work for the government to generally follow the guidelines of Scripture in ethics, and encourage the use of the moral teachings of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), Old Testament Prophets, Jesus, Paul, and Peter. These teachings guide us in "being at peace with all men as much as it depends upon us" (Romans 12), acknowledging that "the government wields the sword for good" (Romans 13), "submitting ourselves to every authority instituted among men... who are sent by God to punish those who do wrong" (I Peter 2). This is, of course, balanced by "obeying God rather than man" (Acts 4:19) in instances when unbiblical direction is given by corrupt governments or tyrants.

Many Reformed individuals (myself included) use the broad guidelines Augustine laid down in his writings as general principles on whether or not participation in a war is "just" and how to go about it if engaged. We must acknowledge that this is a very complex issue with "lesser of two (or more) evils" clearly in play. The "just war" theory does not try to justify going to war; instead it brings war under the control of justice, with the hope that if it is consistently practiced, governments could avoid conflict. This could be so because they would not be the aggressors and war would not be a legitimate form of policy. However, evil is great in this day and age and tyrants, religious anarchists and aggressors seem to be multiplying.

The general rules of a "just war" are:

1. Just cause. All active aggression is condemned; only a defensive war is legitimate. However, if it is obvious that the other side is clearly preparing for aggression based on solid evidence and past performance a justifiable "first strike" would be allowable.

2. Just intention. The only legitimate intention of a just war is to eventually and, as soon as practicable, secure a just peace. Wars of economic gain, religious expansion/control, revenge, or ideology are unacceptable.

3. Last resort. War can only be begun when all good faith discussions, compromises and negotiations have failed. Again this is hard to gauge if one side is not honestly participating in the effort.

4. Government involvement and formal declaration. This is the action of government not individuals. Some sort of "state of war" must be clearly declared. In this day of terrorist organizations that are not under a government clouds this; states supporting such terrorist organizations would then be held responsible for terrorist acts.

5. Limited objectives. If the purpose of war is ultimately peace, then total destruction of the nation is not just. Only narrow war-fighting objectives that bring the war to a successful conclusion are legitimate. Blanket bombing, gassing, the destruction of a people's way of life is not warranted.

6. Proportional means. Is tied closed to #5, the type of weaponry and tactics employed should be limited to secure the limited objectives (repelling the aggressor, deterring future illegal attacks, removing specific aggressive individuals/groups from power).

7. Protection for non-combatants. Since war fighting is a declared, official act of organized government, only those who are active agents of that government (its fighting soldiers--not POWs, casualties, civilian non-participants) may fight. Others should be protected from aggressive acts of violence. (These general "just war" guidelines were taken from an article by Arthur F. Holmes, "The Just War," 1981.).

Now the million dollar question. Given the events and participants today in the Iraqi Situation of 2003, does the United States and its allies have a "right" to go to war against the government of Saddam Hussein. I, sadly and reluctantly, think so. I say this fearing that this will be an enormous setback for Christian missionary involvement in the Middle East and a possible conflagration outside of Iraq of violent street demonstrations and possible toppling of governments (some of whom are friends of the United States) may be a short-term consequence.

Here are my reasons:

1. The United States has been grievously attacked (9/11) by terrorists who have been aided and abetted by the Iraqi regime.

2. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government has been in violation of manufacturing, distributing, and using agents of mass destruction on its own citizens and providing these weapons to terrorist organizations. This has been in direct violation of United Nations’ resolutions to cease and desist in all activities concerning such weapons.

3. Saddam's Iraqi government attempted to kill the father (President Bush Sr.) of the present President of the Untied States during a visit to Kuwait in the 1990s.

4. The Iraqi government has not followed its agreements in good faith to disarm and destroy its weapons.

5. The Iraqi government has a consistent and long record under Saddam Hussein of torturing and terrorizing its citizens and other nationals (such as the Kuwaiti citizens it has refused to release after the Gulf War).

6. The current Iraqi government has attacked its neighbors without provocation (e.g., Israel and Kuwait).

7. The current Iraqi government has attempted to build nuclear weapons on several different occasions against UN non-proliferation resolutions.

8. The Iraqi government is a present threat to regional and world peace.

9. The United States does not wish to annex Iraq, but to remove the evil government and its capabilities of producing and employing weapons of mass destruction. The history of the United States in dealing with Iraq has been to limit damage only to the combatants. This was done in the last Gulf War when the United States and the coalition forces did not pursue Iraqi forces outside of the zone of conflict, but showed remarkable constraint. On the other hand, Iraqi forces started hundreds of oil well fires, terrorized Kuwaiti citizens, destroyed and plundered Kuwaiti property and kidnapped hundreds of Kuwaiti citizens.

Any one of the above reasons would give the United States concern and possibly justify action (war) against it. When joined together the only question is when should the conflict begin? Should we wait for another act of aggression from the Iraqi government against its citizens, neighbors, or the United States or proceed now?

Good Christians disagree if we should ever go to war. Good Christians sincerely believe that our president has ulterior motives (oil, political popularity, pro-Israeli sentiments, revenge for the attempt on his father's life, finishing what his father's administration began, etc.). As stated earlier there are always balancing and conflicting events that allow discussion and disagreement.

Intentions, motives, lesser-of-evils, timing, and sin are always present. Because of our fallen nature, sin is always active this side of heaven. Nevertheless, governments are given to protect their people from harm (I Peter 2; Romans 13). Given the overwhelming evidence, the track record of this tyrant, Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions, if we do not act then we may be irresponsible. Do we send a message of weakness, appeasement, lack of resolve and equivocation to present and would-be terrorists and rogue nations?

My prayers today are: May God have mercy on us all in the days ahead. May Saddam be removed by peaceful means, and if there is a war may it be swift and just with minimum casualties on both sides.
============
Brad Winsted, is Director of Children's Ministry International an organization that produces and distributes catechetical and Reformed materials to churches and individuals

 

I studied Just War Theory - I have a minor in Theology - and looking at not only my own philosophical background but the arguments presented in this article, I would agree that this is a "Just War." Sadly, yes, but that is how it is.

 

Yep. Sounds about right.

I'm tempted to put a really long rant in here, about common sense and how none of the major religions actually revolve around anyone having common sense (common, in the idea that homo sapiens on planet earth are fairly common, hence the sense of communality) simply because the people that have historically run the things want the power.

People. People are the problem. People are the answer.

Work on the people.

 

Since I´m no Christian, I can´t comment on the Religious arguments in the text, but..

A just war??
The problem is, wars are humane, as much as charity, religion. They´re one of the many things which seperates "man" from "animal". War is the fruit of "free mind", freedom of thoughts.
Wether it be about freedom, land, religion, etc..

Because you might not understand the reasons of a (in your eyes) "not just" war, doesnt mean it is not "justifiable"

Therefore every war in my eyes is just, since if I fought along, I would think the same.. Who am I to question their morals, their thoughts, their freedom of mind.

Civilians will die, sure, but not innocents, since there won´t be any around.

P.S.
No I have not studied the "just war theory", since I´m 17

[ February 04, 2003, 13:54: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

The just war is dead. It died with the charta of the league of nations and it's last salute it received in the UN charta. Now it returns as a zombie. For a purpose.

Any attempts to resurrect it will make the world a less safe place (it's bad enough as it is ) - what's just for your attacker is not necessarily as just for the attacked one, who perhaps has to die.

The crusades were a just war ... for the christians - as was the islamic jihad against the christain invaders in palestine .... so what? Despite all the evidence and accusations in the post above any US attack against international law will be an agression, not a just war since that institute is a relic from the dark ages. It is nothing but an excuse for ignoring international law. Eventually, like it or not, Iraq is a sovereign country - maybe ruled by a bastard - but nontheless a sovereign country.

The leeway the world has granted the US with a band of bastards such as Al Quaida is clearly inadequate here. Even the US are bound to international law, even more as the US were among the founders of the UN. Mind that the UN charta is in the essence the common international law, this is massively underlined by the number of countries who have joined the UN - with joining they all acceptet these basic rules. So did the US in San Francisco in 1945. It's just that the current US government gives a sh#@ - and who would be there to condemn them as that requires the votes of all permanent members - including the US vote. By principle all UN members are equal - all sovereign countries, with 5 exceptions that are more equal.
The current US path will demolish the UN and its credibility. Was it the cold war that blocked it for four decades, rendering it incapable, it is now the US indifference to the principles of the UN.

Sure Iraq has violated international law but that's no excuse for the US to join the club. Violence is the ultima ratio - to be used when attacked, preemptive before beeing attacked or with authorisation of the UN. The US can rely on none of these things atm - therfor the sudden popularity of the *just war* theories.

The attempts to construct a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam shall suggest that an attack on Iraq is just an extension of the war against terror - almost self-defence Hardly a convincing argument, even more as it lacks proof (a pity the US gvt is so relucant to bring up any, they must be so super secret no one is allowed to see them). This is a concern that even democrats in the senate have brought up - without getting answers.

[ February 04, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Nope! I would argue that the crusades were ill concieved and should not have been undertaken. Most theologians would agree with me on that one.

Also ... I'm not sure how the charter of the League of Nations killed the idea of a just war. It gave a better chance for peaceful resolutions, but there are always people (like Hussain) who refuse to bow to international "peer pressure" and will harm others if he is not stopped.

 

If you put it that way you're right: The only "justified" wars today are, as in the UN charta: (a) self defence against an attacker (classic), (b) even preemptive self-defence against an imminent attack (like Israel in the 6-day war) and (c) measures of force after chapter VII of the UN charta (like the allied force against Iraq of Desert Storm). That's it. There is no fourth option like "we alone so very just but without the UN". The "just war" just doesn't really fit in this scheme.

As for the crusades: It's pretty irrelevant wethere they actually were right or not, it's a question of what the crusaders felt to be justified to do. That is the crucial problem of the just war.

The just wars were not by chance the cruelest wars. If your cause is just - how can you do wrong?

[ February 04, 2003, 16:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Math most of your reasons are based on speculation with no proof or facts whatsoever. If a war should ever be started it atleast needs to be based on proof and not vague suspiciouns. Not that I think that there ever is a really justifiable war.

There is no proof whatsoever about any connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq, if there is anything it points towards the two not liking each other very much.

Again no solid evidence. Alot of suspicouns though, some may be grounded. The only such weapons that Iraq has been showed to have without question and used were supplied by the Reagon regime during the 80's. There are strong indications that he has been trying to do new batches though.

I know nothing of this so I wont comment.

This is also still being inevstigated, we dont know. I dont think a war should be started over suspicouns. Even though Saddam hasnt been overly cooperative.

Sadly that is none of our buisness if he chooses to torture his people. If we cared about that we would need to topple half the goverments in the world. Including the US according to some people. That defence doesnt include the torture of foreigners though.

Thus the Gulf War, do you believe in punishing someone twice for the same sin?

Once again very uncertain, though quite likely. Proof.

How do you wage a peaceful war? Tens of thousands of civilians will die no matter what the US intentions are. War is hell. Even the soldiers of a democracy are inclined to run amok, just look at Vietnam and even more recently in Kosovo. Perhaps not as vile as the iraqi in Kuwait but vile enough. Soldiers go crazy, soldiers do horrible things, it is a fact of war.

I am not defending Saddam Hussein, it is impossible to do so. But there are many more like him in the world and the west cant judge them all. It would lead to chaos. Hopefully the inspectors will finish their run, either not finding any WMD's or destroying the ones they find and Saddam being toppled by his own people. That is what we should work towards, not more bloodshed.
You as a christian Mathetais should listen more to the christian authorities across the sea. Even if you dont belong to their church they should see the world more or less the same way they do. And they all condemn a war, alot more harshly than I do. I know for a fact that the Archbishop of Sweden and the Archbisop of Canterbury has most vehemently condemned any war at this time as has the Pope.

[ February 04, 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: joacqin ]