“We believe work to develop non-violent means of fending off aggression and resolving conflict best reflects the call of Jesus both to love and justice.” (The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response) For those of us who believe in and try to live a code of non-violence the threat of escalating the war against Iraq can only be seen as wrong. Indeed, we are horrified that, although the Gulf War supposedly was over in 1991, the US war on Iraq never ended. Periodic bombings continue as do harsh economic sanctions resulting in the deaths of over one million Iraqi civilians.
The just war theory is probably more popular among people of Christian faith. It isn’t an easy theory to live up to either. Even a “just” war doctrine presumes that people do no harm to their neighbors, uses how we treat our enemies as a key test of how we love, and causes us to abhor the possibility of taking even a single human life. The just war theory really is a way to limit war.
Application of the Just War Theory to Iraq
1) Just Cause
War is permissible to confront a real and certain danger ie. to preserve innocent life, secure basic human rights, etc. Revenge and retribution are not just causes. Neither is economic gain. UN inspectors tell us that the Iraqi nuclear program is at least 90% dismantled. The Iraqi military was a weak opponent in 1991. Now it is weaker. Neighboring countries do not seem to fear Iraq. Most, including Saudi Arabia, have asked the US not to invade Iraq. Iraq did not use chemical or biological weapons in 1991 though they did against the Kurds. The US dropped bombs containing depleted uranium that caused many serious health problems. So far, no real evidence of a connection between the terrorists responsible for September 11 and the government of Iraq has been found. An argument given for an attack is to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. This admits that they are not presently a real danger.
2) Declared by Competent Authority.
Congress, representing the people, has the right to declare war. The debate is going on now. Now is the time to express an opinion. We know that most the rest of the world is against a war- even our usual allies like France and Great Britain.
3) Comparative Justice.
Is what the war is about sufficiently “right” to override a presumption against war? There can be no absolute justice. Each side must realize that there is a limit to its just cause and therefore use only limited means to pursue that cause. It is a delusion to believe that God is only on our side and against the other. There seems to be an inability or unwillingness for some in government to understand the real concerns of the Middle Eastern nations. The president has declared some nations evil and set the US in the position to vanquish that evil. Information available to the average citizen does not help people understand the historic pain that causes loss of hope. The nations we support in the region have some of the worst human rights records in the world. Little time is given to asking if there is perhaps something in US policy or action that needs rethinking, that others may see as unjust.
4) Right Intention.
All through the conflict, combatants are to remember that the ultimate goal is peace and reconciliation. Unnecessarily destructive acts must be avoided if a peace and a just society is to be the result of the conflict. The economy of the vanquished will need to be restored. Water treatment facilities, roads, hospitals, schools, etc. may not be targets as they were in 1991. When destroyed, this infrastructure must be repaired. Unreasonable conditions may not be inflicted on the loser. That nation cannot be asked to give up all sovereignty and its people, all their rights to make decisions.
5) Last Resort.
Certainly every avenue toward peace has not yet been explored. Iraq has agreed to discuss the return of weapons inspectors and has invited a delegation of US congressional representatives, accompanied by experts of their choice, to tour sites in Iraq where they suspect weapons of mass destruction are hidden. These invitations have not been acted on. The US has “unsigned” the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, has rejected the treaties banning land mines, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention and renounced treaties that would control nuclear weapons and their proliferation. Talk about the “War on Terrorism” often sounds like a declaration that the US will attack first, on suspicion, and ask questions later. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way.
6) Probability of Success.
What is a successful war in a globalized world? The actions of every nation affect the others. Is ridding one nation of an “evil” leader success if it means the world economy reels and plunges individuals and nations into economic distress or ruin? Removal of one leader does not create a new, more just system. Some of the most prestigious military leaders (Generals Zinni, Schwarzkopf, Scowcroft & perhaps Powell) advise concentrating on the Middle East Peace Process, not invasion, if we want real peace. Will war with Iraq restore hope? The lack of hope seems to put mature people into depression and to drive young people to reckless and hurtful actions, including suicide bombings and acts of terrorism. A short, successful invasion would bring the US prestige and perhaps induce people to invest in US corporations and strengthen US claims of economic as well as military superiority, according to some news analysts. Is this success for the poor of the world and the US? We are called as a people to forgiveness and reconciliation for everyone who has been hurt. Does war facilitate this change of heart?
7) Proportionality.
The damage inflicted and the costs incurred by the war must be proportionate to the good achieved. The money cost estimates of a war against Iraq are between 50 and 100 billion dollars. US allies are not interested in helping with the costs as they did with the Gulf War. The campaign against Afghanistan reportedly costs almost $2 billion a month. What does this do to the US economy, the government’s ability to help the poor, to education, healthcare, social security, to aid and debt reduction for poor nations, etc.? Will anyone really benefit except the industrial military complex? How many lives will be lost? How many families disrupted? Can the regular people of Iraq survive? What will happen to the trust levels among nations? Will we ever work together again? How long will it take for the environment to heal? Are the economies and the environment of nations linked? Is it moral for one nation to decide on this much potential world damage alone?
To this we add non-combatant immunity. No matter how hard the military tries, it can’t seem to avoid killing children, old people, farmers, ordinary people not really involved in the fighting. Smart bombs go astray. Humans make errors. Landmines and shells are left unexploded for people to step on and children to find. Simple homes, school, hospitals and needed factories become possible hiding places for the enemy. People already at the bottom of the economic scale loose the little they have worked so hard to achieve.
There must be a better way.
Sources: 9-11 Peace Campaign, International Action Center, Foreign Policy Information Center, United States Catholic Conference, Sojourner Magazine
