Just War?

Google Image

This blog is about the “just war theory,” but the title could just as easily apply to the proclivity of the U.S. and other powers to rely principally on military action to solve their differences.

So, you could ask the question as “Just War? Is this all we can do?”

Just War Theory has a long history in the Western intellectual tradition. St. Augustine, the famous Christian philosopher, theologian and African bishop who died in the year 430, commented on the morality of war from a Christian perspective. But St. Thomas Aquinas eight centuries later provided the most celebrated and still discussed version of the theory. Here are its main outlines.

    1.   Just cause. The reasons for going to war need to be just. The U.S.            Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1993 expressed it this way:         “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression          or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
2.    Right intention. Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
3.    Probability of success. Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.
4.    Last resort. Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.
5.    Proportionality – The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. 

Google Imager

The current war in Iran, seems to me, fails to pass this test in several areas, including “just cause,” “last resort” and “proportionality.” The massive destruction of structures and people in Iran disqualifies this war, in my opinion.

But many ethicists and moral theologians have rejected the Just War Doctrine because in the age of nuclear war, it can’t be applied. When you’re talking about the annihilation of masses of people, affecting everyone across the globe, there is no hope for “probability of success,” (unless you deem mutual annihilation “success”) much less “proportionality.”

Under these conditions, seems to me, the only hope is mutual nuclear disarmament.

The current U.S. government seems to have adopted a Rambo position regarding the use of force in international relations. Such are the ongoing attacks on suspected drug runners in the Caribbean and Pacific oceans. People are killed without the benefit of a trial or even interrogation.

"Stupid Rules of Engagement?"

A recent issue of America magazine cites the current government’s “holy war” attitude which seems to promote the idea that might makes right. America quotes defense secretary Pete Hegseth in his speech to American military leaders in September: “We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence against the enemy. We don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.”

Hegseth styles himself as a Christian, but if you read the gospel, it’s hard to see how the words quoted above can be reconciled with the Jesus of the gospels, who in the garden on the night of his arrest asked his followers to put away their swords and who condemned the notion of an eye for an eye.

Hegseth’s words are also hard to reconcile with a long line of American leaders who saw war as a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Said Abraham Lincoln: “There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.”