Just War: Free Republic's Resident Religion Forum Evaluates a Potential "Iraq War"

a long time ago | Aquinas

[xzins]

What follows are the basic tenets of "just war theory." Feel free to comment on any or all of the tenets in light of the United States opposition to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After your evaluation of each tenet, please answer the question, "Is a war against Iraq justified at this time?"

The Basic Tenets of Just War

1. Last Resort. A just war can only be waged as a last resort

2. Legitimate Authority. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority

3. Redress of Wrong. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered

4. Reasonable Chance of Success. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success

5. Re-Establish Peace. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace

6. Proportionality of Force. States may not use more force than is necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered

7. Collateral Damage. The weapons must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants

[jude24]

(My Western Church Hist. notes, where we discussed this, has this excepted quote, for those who don't want to read through several stuffy paragraphs. This was what I had to google for.)

"What is the charge brought against war? Is it that some men, who will in any case die sooner or later, are killed so as to establish order for people who will live in peace?... The real evils in war are the love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust for power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things... that in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars... and right conduct requires them to act."

[unspun]

I suggest looking to all the kinds of instruction that history affords, in order to determine the principles that are universal, or the information that in some other way is applicable to current events.

I humble suggest not using any documented thought or act from history as a chair to sit on.

In other words, everyone is responsible to think for himself (in fact, there is no other option).

[KC Burke]

An item that might be useful comes from President Lincoln:

Meditation on the Divine Will

Washington, D.C.

September, 1862

This fragment was found and preserved by John Hay, one of President Lincoln's secretaries, who said it was "not written to be seen of men." Some of the thoughts expressed here, written after discouraging days of personal sorrow and military defeats, also appear in Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of 1865.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power on the minds of the now contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun, he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

[Corin Stormhands]

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. . . ."
--Faramir, Captain of Gondor, The Lord of the Rings

what did you expect? ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up and your insight!

[unspun]

Thank you for sharing this. What a blessing to have a President with such perspective in that tragic time.

...believe we have another special blessing, serving us today.

[xzins]

George Will points out in one of his current articles (perhaps his latest article) that the heads of the UN, as opposed to our national leadership, has never had one officer receive one vote from anyone in the world. Libya chairs the peace commission and Iraq the commission on disarmament.....2 nations I never would have voted for. But that's the point....they are not a duly elected/instituted government.

[unspun]

Thanks. Faramir was my favorite character in Tolkien. After all the ambivalence in the other characters, what a joy to come across him. He reminds me of the apostle John. (Too bad what the film did.)

[unspun]

Prayer request from President Bush:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866381/posts
Perhaps you've seen it already.

[xzins]

Thank you. I have seen it and appreciate the bump anyway.

[ksen]

Our top of the hour radio news reported a survey that was taken which showed that support for the war increased as faithful church attendance increased.

IOW, those who faithfully attended services were more likely to support the war on Iraq, than those who did not attend services faithfully.

[xzins]

I read that report somewhere on FR this morning.

Even among mainline churches, whose leadership is liberal, a majority of their membership supported the liberation of Iraq.

[sheltonmac]

I have never had a problem with the basic tenets of a just war. In fact, I would agree with them completely. However, almost everyone supporting this "just" war on Iraq tends to ignore two very important facts: 1) Congress has not issued a constitutionally mandated declaration of war and 2) Iraq has not attacked the United States.

The resolution passed by Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq was not the equivalent of a declaration of war. It simply authorized the president to work with the U.N. to enforce Security Council resolutions. It makes no mention of the existence of a state of war between the U.S. and Iraq. To send in American troops to enforce U.N. policy is unconstitutional, and our efforts will only serve to legitimize the U.N.

[Mike Hernon]

Just War is definately what is being applied by Bush when looking at this war with Iraq.

The moral question raised is without a doubt needed. It is good to note that most of the just war doctrine from Agustine is incorporated into the US Military training and planning.

The reason we are going to war is to remove the threat of Saddam. The only reason we (not the UN) stopped the original Gulf War was because of Saddam's surrender and pledge to disarm. Then the UN stepped in to manage this agreement. As many have aptly pointed out the UN is not a sovereign power, has no army, has no borders to protect and so it seems impossible for them to be considered a 'legitimate authority' according to just war. We are now continuing what Saddam stopped before. The war did not end. This is a 'just cause'.

The US helped found the UN,is the main supplier of funding for the UN, and is the military might of the UN. The US, like a good board member of any corporation tried to get them to fulfill their mission. The special interests of France and Germany have stood in the way.

This does not change the morality of this war, nor has the just war doctrine ever spoken of the UN or something like it as a legitimate authority.

Check out http://www.CatholicJustWar.org for more information. It has statements from Archbishop O'Brien showing how a pre-emptive strike can be morally justified and a lot more.