Posted on 11/23/2001 7:21:41 AM PST by Ada Coddington
The U.S. War In Afghanistan and Just War Theory
Joseph Farinaccio
Nov. 15, 2001
Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, America began a "war" against "terrorism." No matter how right this action might appear to be on the surface, it is incumbent upon Christians to ask themselves whether U.S. actions really constitute a just war or just another humanistic political war. War is a serious thing. Make no mistake about it, U.S. military actions in Afghanistan are going to result in death and suffering for huge numbers of Afghan civilians for years to come.
There are times when it is necessary to take human life. But killing human beings apart from the moral guidelines of Scripture is murder. In the Biblical scheme of things, we live in a fallen sinful world. Because of sin there will be national aggressions that will sometimes lead to war. Just War Theory developed over centuries in the West as Christian theologians have attempted to define when a nation is justified in going to war.
The following outline of Just War Theory is taken from World Magazine:
First come criteria for when going to war is permissible. It isn't enough to honor most of them; all seven must be satisfied.
1. Public authority. War must be declared by a legitimate government. Private individuals and groups cannot do it.
2. Just cause. War must not be waged except to protect innocent life, to ensure that people can live decently, and to secure their natural rights.
3. Right intention (first part - more later). Not only must there be just cause to take up arms; this just cause must be the reason for taking up arms. Our goal must be to achieve a just peace.
4. Comparative justice. War should not be waged unless the evils that are fought are grave enough to justify killing.
5. Proportionality (first part - more later). There must be reason to expect that going to war will end more evil than it causes. By the way, this means not only physical evil, but spiritual - not only destruction of bodies and buildings, but corruption of callings and virtues.
6. Probability of success. There must be a reasonable likelihood that the war will achieve its aims.
7. Last resort. War should not be waged unless a reasonable person would recognize that the peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.
Next come criteria for how war must be fought. No exceptions are allowed, no matter how much we may want to make them.
1. Right intention (second part). Remember, the goal must be to achieve a just peace. Therefore, we must avoid any act or demand that would make it more difficult for our enemies to reconcile with us some day.
2. Proportionality (second part). We must never use tactics that can be expected to bring about more evil than good.
3. Discrimination. Even though harm might come to them accidentally, directly intended attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets are never permissible.
Would these principles cramp our style? They sure would. But God is not interested in our style. What He demands of us is holiness.1
The question for us is whether or not U.S. actions in Afghanistan meet these requirements? On the surface they might seem to, especially given the fact that American civilians were attacked on their soil. But further reflection upon Just War Theory may give us pause to re-think the current war. While no patriotic American wants to see his country as being on the wrong side of an international conflict, especially after 9-11-01, we still want to ask ourselves if the devil (so to speak) is in the details.
First, "public authority" infers that a true war involves sovereign nations.
But was the attack that took place in our country a true act of "war" between sovereign authorities or was it was a criminal act? The pursuit of justice for murderers may end with a legitimate use of governmental force. But such force first involves the operation of proper legal channels to apprehend suspected criminals.
A consistent application of justice stems from the rule of law. So we must ask if the U.S. government should have first gathered evidence to build a legal case against suspects just as it would have done in other highjackings? To declare a war against "terrorism," with its vague and open-ended objective of fighting terrorists "wherever" they may be seems to fall outside of the boundaries of a declared war where the enemy can be truly identified.
Second, "just cause" states that a country must go to war to "protect innocent life" and "ensure that people can live decently, and to secure their natural rights." Is this really a goal of the U.S.? Here, the evidence is very unsettling. A few of the countries supposedly allied with the U.S. in this war have either directly or indirectly supported terrorism in recent years. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example, have well known monetary and ideological ties to bin Ladin's group and many other radical Islamic terrorist networks. The Saudi ruling families have been major sponsors of the radical Islamic theological schools that supply recruits for bin Ladin. They have done this to placate fundamentalist factions within their own country who are opposed to U.S. troops being stationed on Arabian soil.
We may also remember who exactly Osama bin Ladin is. It is now widely known that he's a former ally of our own government. Like Saddam Hussein, bin Ladin is a former U.S. friend in the region. The U.S. funneled both money and weapons, through the CIA, to his original organization during the Afghan-Soviet War. Earlier this year the Bush administration reportedly released over 40 million dollars to the Taliban for so-called humanitarian purposes. They did so despite the fact that bin Ladin was already wanted for the killing of hundreds of U.S. servicemen overseas and was operating with the Taliban's blessing within Afghanistan. Is the U.S. is really interested in ending terrorism, or just selective terrorist groups? Does U.S. money itself often end up funding overseas terrorism?
The Taliban are noted for committing an endless number of barbarous atrocities against their own people. The Afghan human rights organization RAWA recognizes the arbitrariness of U.S. policy towards Afghanistan. Here's what they posted on their web site in the days immediately following 9-11-01:
On September 11, 2001 the world was stunned with the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States. RAWA stands with the rest of the world in expressing our sorrow and condemnation for this barbaric act of violence and terror. RAWA had already warned that the United States should not support the most treacherous, most criminal, most anti-democracy and anti-women Islamic fundamentalist parties because after both the Jehadi and the Taliban have committed every possible type of heinous crimes against our people, they would feel no shame in committing such crimes against the American people whom they consider "infidel." In order to gain and maintain their power, these barbaric criminals are ready to turn easily to any criminal force.
But unfortunately we must say that it was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama Bin Laden has been the blue-eyed boy of CIA. But what is more painful is that American politicians have not drawn a lesson from their pro-fundamentalist policies in our country and are still supporting this or that fundamentalist band or leader. In our opinion any kind of support to the fundamentalist Taliban and Jehadies is actually trampling democratic, women's rights and human rights values...2 (Emphasis added.)
Politicians in Washington are usually driven by whatever are they deem "U.S. interests" at any given time. None of this, of course, justifies the attacks on our country, but these facts do beg Americans to look at the bigger picture. R. J. Rushdoony noted, "The Bible is against offensive war. This is not acceptable to many people. What would have happened, they say, if we had not waged war against the Nazis, or prepared to do so against the Marxists? They do not stop to consider that from day one all such regimes were financed by loans and pacts by us. Why not terminate such orders by withdrawing all support? Or do we want war?"3
Third, "right intention" is also suspect in this war. It is likely the 9-11 tragedies were so large scale in the minds of the political establishment immediate that retaliation against some sort of enemy had to take place lest the voting public dissent. But is the political appeasement of U.S. voters a valid motive for killing?
Fourth, the U.S. is dropping bombs that, even by conservative estimates, have probably killed or maimed large numbers of Afghan civilian non-combatants thus far. What good does it do for Donald Rumsfeld to hold daily press conferences and repeat that our military isn't targeting civilians when in fact their own reports show they are targeting civilian areas? Bombs do not "discriminate" against whom they maim and kill.
Fifth, U.S. actions have so far displaced several hundred thousand people and have caused disruption to the already poorly coordinated humanitarian aid in the country. By the time this is over there will likely be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties by way of either direct or indirect U.S. actions. And so we must ask, is all this is proportional justice?
Sixth, we must honestly ask ourselves if this war is winnable? If winning means killing Osama bin Ladin then, of course, that is possible. But can anyone win a war on "terrorism"? Does anyone seriously think that will happen? Israel has never eliminated its terrorist problem with the use of extreme force. Americans should also ask themselves if the cost of enacting a police state in America in the name of making us all "secure" is worth it? No government, including our own, should be given the extreme police powers just enacted by Congress. The potential (and temptation) for abuse is far too great.
Finally, we are required to ask if this war was entered only as a last resort. Did President Bush do everything he could to exercise peaceful alternatives to bring bin Ladin to justice? It's obvious that immediate preparations began after 9-11 for a virtually unilateral U.S. military campaign against Afghanistan and "evil terrorists wherever they are." If indiscriminate killing of any civilians is wrong (something the U.S. seems to take for granted concerning its own), then shouldn't these things be approached with a lot more gravitas than usual?
The state is a legitimate institution. But it has limits. As P. Andrew Sandlin observed, "The Biblical state protects against tyranny from within (crime) and tyranny from without (invasion). There is no Biblical justification for war except to protect against tyranny from without - invasion."4 The U.S. wasn't invaded by a foreign army. The present U.S. policy of foreign interventionism currently fuels the incentive for terrorism against it. A policy of military neutrality towards other countries would seem to be the greatest step the U.S. government could take to seriously end terrorism. A new world order cannot arise from U.S. hegemony. It can only come in a world transformed by the gospel of peace.
Is the current U.S.-Afghan war just? It is certainly legitimate to question whether or not Just War Theory actually reflects what Scripture teaches concerning the subject of war, but it seems reasonable to conclude at this point that the current military action against Afghanistan doesn't fulfill its requirements.
Notes
1. J. Budziszewski , Checklist for Kosovo, World (April 17,1999)
2. Posting on the RAWA web site in the days following the events of Sept. 11, 2001 at: www.RAWA.org
3. R.J. Rushdoony, "War", May 2000 Chalcedon Report, p.2.
4. P.Andrew Sandlin, "War, the Bible, and the State", May 2000 Chalcedon Report, p. 3.
Joseph Farinaccio is employed in the electronics industry and also owns a small PC/Networking business. He lives in Pennsville, NJ with his wife Joni and their two children. The Farinaccios are members of the Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church of Bear, DE. He can be contacted at: jjfarina5@yahoo.com.
One thing about this Just War theory is that I've always felt it was based much more on European civility than on the Bible. And once you set up rules that dictate when you can or cannot go to war, your enemies can find those loopholes and attack you, knowing that you will not attack back according to your set of rules.
For instance, there is this point about whether the hijackers were acting on behalf of a sovereign country. Obviously they were not acting on orders from the head of state of any country, but does that mean that we have to respond merely to a criminal act rather than an act of war because we're bound by our Just War theory?
It does not square with most other articles which I have read on Just War teaching and the 9/11 attacks.
Of course, some carry more weight than others. In part, it is a matter of gravitas, jurisdiction and authority. Some have these qualities, some don't.
Sursum Corda
Related ... Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
1. Public authority. War must be declared by a legitimate government. Private individuals and groups cannot do it.
Would the American Revolution have been a Just War under this criteria. The public authority it was fought under was lacking a whole lot of authority in 1775 and 1776. There are many other questionable wars in history that in retrospect seem just but would not have met this criteria.
2. Just cause. War must not be waged except to protect innocent life, to ensure that people can live decently, and to secure their natural rights.
I have no problem with this one.
3. Right intention (first part - more later). Not only must there be just cause to take up arms; this just cause must be the reason for taking up arms. Our goal must be to achieve a just peace.
I do not have a great deal of problem with this as the general principle but I do have a number of questions regarding its actual implementation over human history. I would submit that when one is waging a defensive war this may not be so important.
4. Comparative justice. War should not be waged unless the evils that are fought are grave enough to justify killing.
No argument here. But the question does come down to definition of what are greater evils.
5. Proportionality (first part - more later). There must be reason to expect that going to war will end more evil than it causes. By the way, this means not only physical evil, but spiritual - not only destruction of bodies and buildings, but corruption of callings and virtues.
Here again the details are what is important.
6. Probability of success. There must be a reasonable likelihood that the war will achieve its aims.Here I have a major problem. The American Revolution had little chance of success when Independence was declared yet the resultant victory was thus sweeter. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was a just war from the standpoint of the Jews who fought it if ever there was one yet it had no chance of success. The Israeli War for Independence had no reasonable chance of success yet victory was theirs.
7. Last resort. War should not be waged unless a reasonable person would recognize that the peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.
This I do quibble with but if I disagree with one I do not meet this author's definition of a just war?
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
A few observations: any Scriptural account of the morality of war needs to be extrapolated from the Gospel account of justice. There are no explicit "rules of war" taught in the New Testament, and the wars of the Old Testament are fought according to specific divine injunctions for singular purposes - they do not teach general moral rules for warfare.
The distinction between public acts of war/private acts of a criminal nature is specious. In the history of Christianity, from the fall of Rome to the establishment of modern public states in the XVIIth century, almost all wars were acts of private sovereigns against other private sovereigns. Criminal acts, by extrapolation from Farinaccio.
Even supposing that he was not wrong about the private/public distinction, real world situations are not so easily demarcated. If the government of Afghanistan permits its citizens or residents to attack the citizens of another polity indiscriminately, it is not blameless. Its very passivity amounts to an act of war.
Further, it is unknown exactly how "private" al-Qaida is and how much it is public entity of the Taliban's government. In the Third Reich the SA and the SS were considered private soldiers of the Nazi party and not formal members of the German military or police. In reality, they were part and parcel of the governing apparatus of the Nazi state, fighting alongside German regulars and performing key state functions.
The question of proportionality in the current situation is a canard. The point of this war, quite justly, is to eliminate a future threat. If the cancer of al-Qaida is permitted to grow, then it is a matter of time before al-Qaida obtains the financial and technical resources necessary to unleash nuclear attacks on the US. This organization has expressed its determination to do anything necessary to achieve such goals. Eradicating it proactively is the definition of just war.
Whether or not we chose to assist the organization to fight a limited war against an invading power in the past is absolutely meaningless. The question is:what is the organization doing now, what are its currently stated goals? It may have been right in the past to help its members fight a defensive war against an invading Russian force. That does not mean we are to sit back while this same organization wages an offensive war against noncombatants.
Farinaccio's argument is morally repulsive on its face and riddled with logical holes.
IMO, yes, we should respond to a criminal act and punish those responsible if there are any still alive. If we are frustrated by not finding any still alive, we are still not permitted to lash out at people we don't like and make them whipping boys.
How does this article differ from the others?
My major objections to the current military action include its lack of a constitutional Declaration of War and clear military objectives.
No formal declaration is required when we are attacked. The Joint resolution met all constitutional requirements. As to clear military objectives those too have been met. The objective is to root out and destroy terrorist organizations with a global reach along with "states" that harbor and support them.
Right. That's why the Congress decided not to declare war against Japan. LOL. Where do you get this stuff?
How about here?
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.1422 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.1423 Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .''1424 But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.1425
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.