PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE JUST WAR

“For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism—it is recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”  He went on to argue that “war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.”  He also stated:  “Of course, we know that from most of history, this concept of ‘just war’ was rarely observed.  The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.” 

What did he mean by the just war?  A few thoughts. Pacifism and activism are the two extremes on the war issue.  Pacifism says it is never right to participate in war; activism says it is always right.  Through the history of the church, a mediating view has developed called the just war tradition.  This tradition sees some wars as unjust and some as just.  The challenge lies in discerning which wars are just.  Since the time of the fifth century theologian Augustine, the majority of Christians have accepted the proposition that there exists a set of criteria whereby a war and its methods are deemed “just.”  What follows is a summary of the most widely accepted criteria for the just war tradition:

1.  A Just Cause.  A just cause for the use of force exists whenever it is necessary either to repel an unjust attack, to retake something wrongly taken, or to punish evil.  An example of this criterion is Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  Ethically speaking, just war theorists argue, Saddam’s action was a flagrant case of aggression and therefore it was justifiable for the world community to repel his unjust aggression.

2.  Right Authority.  This criterion focuses on established, legitimate, and properly constituted authority using force for a “just cause.”  In the United States this “right authority” consists in the powers granted to the President of the United States, by the War Powers Act or by a congressional declaration of war.  In international affairs today, “right authority” might involve action by the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force.  The point of this criterion focuses on legitimate authority, not private individuals who wage war.

3.  Right Intention.  This criterion stresses the end goal for the use of force.  The aim must be, for example, to turn back or undo aggression and then to deter such aggression in the future.  The end for the use of force must be peace, not aggression or continued war.  Again, the Gulf War of 1991 offers an example of this just war criterion.  The world community had no aggressive aims against the territory or people of Iraq.  “Right intention” in this conflict meant rolling back Saddam’s aggression, establishing the peace of the Middle East and assuring that safeguards would protect that peace in the future.

4.  Proportionate Means.  As a criterion, this point centers on just means in the use of force; it must be appropriate to the goal.  Allowing aggression, for example, to stand, this view argues, is condoning an evil in itself and opening the door to yet further evil.  Therefore, military force, whether land, air or sea forces are involved, must be proportionate to the goal.  Using nuclear weapons, for example, would be disproportionate in rolling back aggression of a third-rate nation with no air force or navy.  Using chemical and biological weapons is another example of disproportionate means.

5.  Last Resort.  This criterion involves the legitimate government using all diplomatic and foreign policy resources, including economic sanctions, to force the aggressive nation to pull back.  If the aggressor responds with intransigence and continued belligerence, the legitimate government has no choice but use of military force.  Again, the Iraq crisis of the 1990-1991 offers a classic example of this criterion:  The allies used economic sanctions, diplomatic activity and personal diplomacy to change Saddam Hussein’s aggressive actions against Kuwait.  He refused.  Therefore, just war advocates argue, the world community was just in rolling back his aggressive actions.

6.  Noncombatant Immunity.  This is the most difficult criterion for the just war position.  The military force used must be discriminate--the moral principle that seeks to protect noncombatants in war by prohibiting their being used directly or intentionally targeted by military force.  Of course this means going to all ends not to attack intentionally civilians, not to bomb civilian neighborhoods and not to kill intentionally and indiscriminately the civilian population of an enemy.  With the advent of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear or chemical or biological, one sees how difficult this criterion becomes for modern warfare.  Non-combatant immunity does not exist.  Because entire populations are decimated, neither does proportionate means.  This is why many Christians argue that nuclear warfare does not meet this just war criterion and is therefore immoral and a sin.
 
In summary, the just war position argues that war must be fought only for a just cause and not to pursue aggrandizement, glory or vengeance.  War must be declared by a legitimate authority and have a reasonable chance of success.  The good likely to result must outweigh the evil of warfare and of allowing the wrongdoing provoking the war to continue.  War must be a last resort after less violent approaches have failed.  Civilian populations must not be deliberately attacked, every effort must be made to minimize casualties among them and no unnecessary force must be wielded against either troops or civilians.
 
See Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post (11 December 2009); ChristianityToday.com (11 December 2009); and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 61-69.

Print