Christianity has concerned itself with matters of war and peace for almost its entire history. The one unifying assumption of the faith has been that war is terrible and is to be avoided assiduously. There has always been a part of Christianity that has rejected war absolutely, considering participation in it to be completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus. But alongside it has been a strand of the faith that recognizes that war is morally acceptable in certain circumstances. "Just war theory" dates back to St. Augustine in the early days of the church. I think it still is a useful way of prayerfully considering whether or not a war, and/or one's participation in it, is justified.
Now is a critical time for all of us as American citizens to consider whether or not there is moral justification for our country to continue to fight in Iraq. We owe it to our troops, to our country, and to the Iraqi people. It's time to let our government's leaders know what we think. This month has brought a long-promised review of the progress, or lack of it, in the US occupation. It's a good time to dust off St. Augustine's principles and meditate on them, while considering the facts before us. I suggest that we remember to apply "just war theory" to the situation in Iraq today, rather than focusing on whether or not the war was "just" when the US first invaded Iraq..
A "just war" is one that meets all of these criteria:
Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and can
therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done
wrong.
Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs
on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use
of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly
outweigh that suffered by the other. Legitimate authority: Only duly
constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war 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. Probability of success:
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where
disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; Last
resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable
alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Here I will share my "moral reasoning" about the war in Iraq, based on these criteria:
Just cause: Today, the question is whether or not the US has "just cause" to remain there. I believe the US has a moral obligation to help protect the lives of Iraqi citizens who have been cast into a maelstrom of a civil war which we are partly responsible for starting. Also, the US presence in Iraq has helped terrorists groups gain recruits to threaten the US directly, and part of that threat is manifest in Iraq itself. Today there is "just cause" for a US military presence in Iraq.
Comparative justice: It is an injustice for the Iraqi people to have a huge US military occupation of their country. Our presence is deeply resented by most Iraqi citizens. Yet it would be an injustice to the Iraqi people for the US to leave without restoring order to the country and preventing even worse civil conflict. "Just war theory" wisely asks which injustice is greater. The first injustice stimulates a certain proportion of the civil violence that has engulfed the country. The US presence in Iraq helps to spawn a significant portion of the animosity that feeds the conflict: we create enemies of the US just by being there. The military presence of the US also contributes to a certain portion of the civil conflict among ethnic and other groups. The second injustice would end the US occupation that helps feed the violence, but that would not eliminate the violence altogether, and could result in even worse civilian casualties. It is hard to measure which injustice is greater, so I withhold an opinion on this question. Yet the question remains a very important one to ask!
Legitimate authority: Iraq is now technically sovereign again, and it has explicitly allowed the "coalition" to continue to occupy the country. However, put in a global context, this legitimacy is compromised because there is only nominal participation by countries other than the US in the "coalition". The majority of Iraqis appear to believe that the US has no legitimate authority to occupy their country, and they don't seem to believe that their own government has much legitimacy, either.
Right intention: There is reason for us to stay vigilant about keeping "clean" the intentions of the US in Iraq. I believe the US government wants Iraq to be a sovereign country with control of its oil and other resources. But around the world, and within Iraq, there are widespread perceptions to the contrary. Therefore it is vital that we, as citizens, hold our government accountable to prevent it from taking advantage of Iraq in its vulnerable condition.
Probability of success: It is here that the continuing US occupation of Iraq most clearly flunks the "just war" test. The success of the US mission in Iraq depends on the viability of the Iraqi government in creating conditions for a peaceful political settlement to the conflicts in the country. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is ineffectual and only marginally legitimate in the eyes of its citizens. And the trend does not look good for significant improvement, despite the space that the US military "surge" operation is trying to provide to make political progress possible. This severely undercuts the effectiveness of the US occupation in bringing about anything more than short-term truces between the multiple militias and tribal groups that effectively control the country. There is now a powerful home-grown resistance to Al Qaeda. A US pullout would deny Al Qaeda's propaganda advantage of playing to resentment toward the US occupation. If the US left, Al Qaeda might well be defeated by Iraqi militias. The improbability of the success of the US in bringing order to Iraq through the military occupation is grounds enough for us to begin an immediate pullout of our forces. We would still have an obligation to help rebuild the country and provide humanitarian and other kinds of aid, insofar as such action would be practically possible.
Last resort: At this point, a withdrawal of US forces, done as swiftly and as orderly as possible, is the last resort. We have proven that the US military occupation cannot end the civil war raging in the country, given that the Iraqi government isn't even close to being viable enough to maintain whatever peace we might create. A withdrawal would be fraught with serious risks to our troops, to our national security, and to the Iraqi people, but I don't believe there is a viable alternative that would be less risky for all concerned. We can only hope that a US pullout, and the law-and-order vacuum that might result, will frighten Iraq's leaders into rapidly finding a political settlement to the conflict.
How would you apply "just war theory" to the Iraq war? I hope you'll join me in sending your thoughts to your members of Congress, Senators, and President!