Just War: How does Iraq measure?

[TheGrungeDiva]

Although some Christians would argue that there's no such thing as a "just" war, there is a doctrine called "Just War Theory" that allows for war in specific situations. The question is this: we have been fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Do these actions qualify as "just war"? Why or why not?

There are seven criteria which must be met for a war to be "just":

1) Just Cause -- The war must be in reaction to aggression. Unprovoked aggression is never justified.
2) Just Intention -- The motives must be righteous.
3) Last Resort -- It can only be just after all diplomacy and non-violent political pressure have been levied.
4) Formal Declaration -- None of that "police action" that hasn't been approved by a government.
5) Limited Objectives -- The objectives must be clearly stated, and once achieved, the action is over.
6) Proportionate Means -- In other words, don't drop an A-bomb on an aboriginal tribe.
7) Noncombatant immunity -- And no shooting the civilians.

Do the actions in the Middle East qualify under all 7 of these criteria?

 

[Ritter]

No they don't. There has been no formal declaration of war since WWII. A shame, really.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe God agrees with the War on Terror. I believe God would agree with war on Iran. I am in the military and if we go to war with Iran I might be going there so it is not just my opinion. I would die for Israel not to be nuked by Iran. I believe God would agree with any war to stop a nuclear weapon from being used. I believe it is prophetic that we must protect Israel. I would love to be the hand of God to save the Jews. Iran would be the perfect example of a just war.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I believe God agrees with the War on Terror. I believe God would agree with war on Iran. I am in the military and if we go to war with Iran I might be going there so it is not just my opinion. I would die for Israel not to be nuked by Iran. I believe God would agree with any war to stop a nuclear weapon from being used. I believe it is prophetic that we must protect Israel. I would love to be the hand of God to save the Jews. Iran would be the perfect example of a just war.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I find it interesting that your concern is with nuclear arms. Do you think, then, that the US was wrong to use a nuclear bomb against Japan in WWII?

Again, thank you for your honesty and clarity.

 

[LadySpeedStick]

1) Just Cause -- The war must be in reaction to aggression. Unprovoked aggression is never justified.

Obviously the terrorists committed acts of aggression.

2) Just Intention -- The motives must be righteous.

To stop terrorism? Righteous. =]

3) Last Resort -- It can only be just after all diplomacy and non-violent political pressure have been levied.

Iraq had ignored over 15 UN mandated sanctions to allow a full investigation of their country for WMDs.

4) Formal Declaration -- None of that "police action" that hasn't been approved by a government.

We formally declared it. We did not get congressional approval first (which is what I think the first guy who replied is referring to), but it was no surprise. It was declared as an executive mandate.

5) Limited Objectives -- The objectives must be clearly stated, and once achieved, the action is over.

This was a bit murky unfortunately. Our clear objective was to end terrorism. However, how that is measured is a mystery.

6) Proportionate Means -- In other words, don't drop an A-bomb on an aboriginal tribe.

Compared to what Saddam was doing to his Kurdish citizens, U.S. acts looked like a slap on the wrist.

7) Noncombatant immunity -- And no shooting the civilians.

While there may have been individual instances of rogue soldiers, it was not the objective nor endorsement of the U.S. government to ever target Iraqi civilians.



These 7 standards in and of themselves aren't 100% capable of being measured. They were not created so that every war would fit each to a tee, but they are a general set of positive guidelines. I think the war in Iraq measures up nicely, considering.

 

[mori]

Questioning war is so profitable for Christians. I'm glad to see this pop up here. War is man's way of dealing with evil and examining it leads, if one is patient, into the gospel, God's way of dealing with evil. To begin, with apologies, but we haven't been fighting any wars.

First, we aren't fighting wars. Some people have crossed oceans to kill other people. Some third parties may have stood behind a podium and said some words, but this has no effect when the individual soldier decides to point his gun at another individual and pull the trigger. No single drop of responsibility is removed from him; others may have to pay for cajoling him into doing it, but there is no modification of ethical questions because a piece of paper said "it's now war time!"

This ghost of "war," this false category, doesn't appear in the Bible as far as I can tell. When God wanted people dead, he didn't say "this is war now and it's a special time and ethical restraints are different." Rather, he said: "kill those folks." In fact, in some scriptures he gave graphic instructions:

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

God, more than most, is aware that killing is still killing. I personally wish he wouldn't have commanded it, but at least he didn't try to shirk responsibility by creating a special category of actions and sanitizing it with a new name. Man is more likely to shirk responsibility.

Second, we aren't fighting wars. This is the same sort of tribal mistake as thinking "we" made a goal in a basketball game when, in fact, the kid worked his *** off in practice and I just bought a ticket, hotdog, and beer. There is no automatic connection between civilians and warriors, except when one encourages one to go kill.

Here I'm paraphrasing Richard Rohr, who is changing the way I understand the entire Bible. God wiped out everybody but one acceptable family and look how long that lasted! He gave an explicit moral code and punished with death those who disobeyed - and look how that turned out. Etc., etc.

It was only when Jesus, in solidarity with the entire world, refused to resist sin that anything permanent was accomplished. To this day, Christians still try to spread his message with force (and psychological force counts here too). There will always be a remnant, however, who understands that the gospel is not what we go out and do to remake the world, but what we allow to be done to us.

 

[mori]

To follow up on something I wrote above, and I apologize but the idea is bugging me, but a lot of times it seems like God simply fails. Perhaps these were demonstrations that certain strategies do not work. Isn't that part of the purpose of the Law? To show we can't work our way up?

Other examples: God finds one acceptable man and family and kills the rest. Not long after that, the blameless man is passed out naked in front of his children. God finds one acceptable man and family and kills the rest of the town. Not long after that, his daughters get him drunk and try to have kids with him. God brings himself to earth, his people worship a cow. God gives them law, they disobey frequently. Etc., etc.

Maybe God's saying: look, you won't be able to do it better than I did and it didn't work. Human strategies for dealing with human evil, most of which involve killing, don't do what needs doing. Perhaps just war theory is reading as prescriptive what God meant as a warning, an object lesson. If not, why didn't Amalek just have a seizure and die? Why did they have to be involved? If not, why did God say:

Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?

When I was teaching the quadratic formula, I showed my students a very common error. It's my job as a teacher to point out pitfalls of common strategies. I said, if you do it this way, showed them the calculations, etc. We got to the end and it didn't turn out right. Some people weren't listening too carefully, however...

Were some people not listening too carefully, however, and came up with just war theory?

 

[mori]

As an aside, apologies for not following the clear instructions in the OP, but I'd react similarly if I came across a list of criteria that could be used to justify, say, certain rapes but not others.

 

[Ritter]

Wow mori. Interesting points raised. I really have not formulated an opinion on them yet, because I think the Just War Theory has some teeth.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Obviously the terrorists committed acts of aggression.

I don't think you'll get any arguments that terrorists' actions are NOT just. They fail under several categories. The formal declaration part, being by a government, leaves terrorists out, because terrorists are rarely sanctioned by any recognized government. (Some governments are more tolerant of terrorists, and will allow them to hide within their borders, but that's another issue.)

We formally declared it. We did not get congressional approval first (which is what I think the first guy who replied is referring to), but it was no surprise. It was declared as an executive mandate.

Actually, my comparison was to Vietnam (and Korea), neither of which were ever declared. With Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have been nice to get the congressional approval before declaring war, but congress followed up and approved it afterwards, so it's not a big deal.

5) Limited Objectives -- The objectives must be clearly stated, and once achieved, the action is over.
This was a bit murky unfortunately. Our clear objective was to end terrorism. However, how that is measured is a mystery.

Now, see, here is where I have to insist it's not just "murky." We're not even completely clear on whom, exactly, the enemy is. We say "terrorism" as if that were a tangible thing. But, as we're finding out, when the government gets to define what constitutes "terrorism," and then defines that enemy as a large enough threat to suspend our constitutional freedoms in order to fight .... I have to wonder what's at stake. Even if we said we were at war with "terrorists" instead of "terrorism," that would be a little better. But, see, I can say, "I'm terrified when anyone plays rock-and-roll music. Therefore rock-and-roll music is a form of terrorism." If enough of the right people in the government agree, what with the patriot act and all, the next thing you know they'll be banning blue jeans and I-pods, as part of this "war on terrorism."

See, sure, initially the war on terrorism has the best of intentions, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and as soon as the government gave itself veto power over our constitutional rights to question it, we were in deep doo-doo.

I agree with you that on the other 6 out of 7 markers, the current efforts in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan do seem to meet the "Just War" criteria.

I think on this one point, it does not meet the minimal criterion. And if for no other reason, I think we, as a country of people who love freedom, who take freedom seriously, need to take one giant step back and think about what we're doing. Do we really support democracy? Are we willing to destroy democracy in order to enforce it in another country? That's what it's becoming, and I don't like it one bit.

 

[Crossfire]

Personally, I wasn't fond of the war in Iraq. I really did not feel that there was adequate evidence to declare war. However, being a son of a Veteran of the Vietnam Era, I supported our troops 100% even though I really didn't agree with the reasoning behind our presence there.

To me Afghanistan is a completely different story. I believe we had every right to declare war on the Taliban because of what they did in 911. I'm also 100% behind covert operations in Pakistan when it became obvious that they were playing both sides.

I also support any sanctions and possible military action against Iran. I believe that the current Shiite Leadership has pushed the envelop to the breaking point and feel that war with these Islamic extremists is inevitable. Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons! Although I do realize that the consequences of this war will be tremendous. I don't think our economy can handle $5 to $10 a gallon gas prices.

 

[Jullianna]

Crossfire, I grew up in a military family on bases all over the planet. My stepdad and brothers are all veterans. Like you, I will always support our troops because I know they don't always agree with the decisions that determine their service, but they serve bravely anyway.

Despite what my stepdad experienced after two tours in Vietnam, I still supported our government's decisions, until the junk Rumsfield and Cheney tried to spoon feed us led Colin Powell to resign. I rarely accept the government's justification for such actions anymore; but, again, I will always, always, always, support and pray for our troops and their families. I have not yet determined how I feel about the iranian situation.

 

[Crossfire]

Despite what my stepdad experienced after two tours in Vietnam, I still supported our government's decisions, until the junk Rumsfield and Cheney tried to spoon feed us led Colin Powell to resign.

I was personally appalled when Colin Powell resigned, it was obvious that he was being used as a scape goat. I always liked Colin Powell and had thought that he might become our first African American president, that is if he could have somehow separated himself from the many embarrassments of the Bush Administration.

 

[Jullianna]

I read his biography and my brother knew him from Command College. He was/is a gentleman and a warrior, and he was a leader to his men and genuinely cared about them.

I, too, would have liked to see him run for President, but he said he couldn't put his family through that.

Sorry about the thread derail, y'all.

 

[Oncefallen]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I find it interesting that your concern is with nuclear arms. Do you think, then, that the US was wrong to use a nuclear bomb against Japan in WWII?

Again, thank you for your honesty and clarity.

Even though your question was directed at someone else , I'll throw in my $.02. Comparing the US atomic bombing of Japan, and the possible Iranian bombing of Israel is comparing apples and oranges in my opinion. In the case of WWII, the US used atomic weapons to end a war that we did not start. Casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around 200,000 versus the estimated 2 million US and Japanese casualties if we had to invade Japan to end the war. In the case of Iran, the probabilities are high that Iran intends to use nuclear warheads (if they develop them) to start a war.

 

[Dude653]

Romans 13 1-4...enough said

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I read his biography and my brother knew him from Command College. He was/is a gentleman and a warrior, and he was a leader to his men and genuinely cared about them.

I, too, would have liked to see him run for President, but he said he couldn't put his family through that.

Sorry about the thread derail, y'all.

I don't think it's a derail at all. Maybe a re-route?

I think it is important to distinguish between supporting a war and supporting those who fight in it. I agree with you and others who say you can reject a government's choice to go to war, and still support the troops who fight. I may disagree with them, in fact, and their choices to join the military, and/or to fight, but I will defend them, personally. I think the way the US treated the soldiers after Viet Nam was deplorable.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Even though your question was directed at someone else , I'll throw in my $.02.

Yes, I am very familiar with the common defense of the use of nuclear weapons in WWII. The problem with answering a question that wasn't directed at you, is that you didn't really answer my question.

The original poster said:

I believe God would agree with any war to stop a nuclear weapon from being used.

You'll notice, he did not say anything about minimizing casualties, or first strike vs. last strike, or any of the other reasons behind the use of nuclear weapons. The original poster said he believes God would agree with ANY war to stop a nuclear weapon from being used.

I was probing that poster, to find out what HE meant. I was curious if HE held that belief, despite the arguments in favor of using nuclear weapons, for example, in WWII. So for you to bring up those reasons really doesn't help me to know if what particular poster thinks on the matter.

I would still like to know Jonathanbchristian thinks on the topic.

 

[Ritter]

He probably saw Dr. Strangelove.

 

[Jullianna]

Ritter! I was reading so intently until you made me snicker!