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 justified 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 appropriate.
Now is a critical time for all of us as American citizens to
consider whether or not there is a moral basis for our country to attack
Syria. It's time to take ourselves seriously as citizens, inform
ourselves, prayerfully come to conclusions, and let our politicians know our
views.
According to Augustine, 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 Syria, based on these criteria:
Just cause: There’s no question that the Syrian regime
is responsible for killing civilians with poison gas. This is a clear
violation of international norms that have been codified since the First World
War. There must be consequences for this crime against humanity.
There is just cause for military action.
Comparative justice: War is always unjust, but the
injustice of war against the Syrian regime is outweighed by the gross injustice
and unacceptability of its use of sarin gas against civilians.
Legitimate authority: The use of chemical
weapons is a crime against all of humanity and specifically against international
conventions. This was not an act directed against the United
States. So the legitimate authority to respond militarily would be
international in nature. However, for various reasons, the United Nations
and other international bodies with wide representation are not able or willing
to respond to this incident with military force. So there is a serious
problem of legitimacy should the US choose to respond unilaterally or with few
international partners.
Right intention: The intention of President Obama to
attack Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is
a righteous one: to deter such attacks in the future.
Probability of success: It is highly questionable
whether or not a military strike against Syria’s regime would succeed in the
right intentions that President Obama has expressed. Civilian casualties
would be likely, as would be the creation of more refugees. The attack
might cause further serious instability in the Middle East. It might
result in further desperation by the Assad regime, and it was desperation that
led to the chemical attacks in the first place. Also, it’s very uncertain
that Iran or North Korea would base their decisions regarding nuclear weapons
development on the course of action America might take in Syria. The
probability of success is not clear enough to pass this part of the test.
Last resort: An alternative “last resort” is for the
international legal system to bring Assad to justice for war crimes, even if it
takes years to apprehend him. America can work now to help create the
legal case for this action, in cooperation with other nations.
Applying this ancient Christian moral calculus, I conclude
that a US attack on Syria flunks the test. How would you apply St. Augustine’s
criteria to this current crisis?
Website: JIMBURKLO.COM Weblog: MUSINGS Follow me on twitter: @jtburklo
See a video interview about my new novel, SOULJOURN
See the GUIDE to my articles and books
Associate Dean of Religious Life, University of Southern California