|
|
|
The
Bishop's Journal
February 2003
When is war justified?
As I watch, read and listen to the ongoing flow of media coverage concerning the unfolding crisis in Iraq, I am becoming increasingly distressed by the clear, underlying assumption that war in Iraq is inevitable. The question, it seems is not a matter of if there will be war but when. I suppose this shouldn't be so surprising, given humanity's preference for resolving conflict through violent means.
Collectively, we spend many hundreds of times more dollars to develop military options and resources than we do to finding non-violent responses to international conflict. And when your favourite tool is a hammer, it shouldn't be surprising that every problem ends up looking like a nail!
This is not to say that military action is never justified. The Lutheran tradition isn't pacifist and we have generally subscribed to "just war" theories that articulate a rationale for determining when war-as abhorrent as it is-might be considered to be a just response to a particular set of circumstances.
In a recent article in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics, Martha Ellen Stortz suggests that the appropriateness of a proposed course of military action be evaluated based on the following criteria; just cause, proper authorization, intent, last resort and proportionality.
1. Is this a just cause? This criteria demands that war not be waged for reasons of revenge or domination, but only for reasons of self-defense against a clear and present threat, or for the protection of innocent life. Have those who are advocating military action against Iraq articulated a rationale that meets such criteria?
2. Is the action properly authorized? This criteria demands that the decision to wage war be made by those who have legitimate authority to make such a decision. Who gets to decide? The President of the United States? The U.S. Congress? Or is the United Nations the only body that should properly make such a decision?
3. What is the intent of the proposed action? Before action can be taken we need to be able to articulate a clear rationale. What is our motivation in this particular situation? Are we attempting to remove a despotic leader from power? Are we removing a threat to world peace? Are we combating terrorism? Or are we simply protecting our own narrow set of military, economic and political interests?
4. Is this action being taken as a last resort? War should only be waged once all other means-both diplomatic and economic-have been fully and completely exhausted. Is this really the case in this situation or are there other less destructive options that have yet to be fully explored?
5. Is the proposed action proportional in terms of the means and the ends? Simply stated, there should be a reasonable expectation that the proposed course of action will actually make a situation better and not worse. What-beyond the short-term gains of an expected military victory-will be the long-term implications of an invasion of Iraq?
What harvest will we ultimately reap from the seeds that have been sown?
I'm not presently able to answer these questions with anything approaching a level of certainty that would allow me to be supportive of the course of action we seem to have resigned ourselves to following. I suspect I'm not alone in that. Let us do all we can to encourage public debate and discussion on this important question. Decisions on so critical a question should not and cannot be made by default.
