March 01, 2003
Is unilateral war against Iraq unjust? Message from the director
As this edition of our magazine goes to press the world watches the drama of the United States and our President moving troops and the tools of war in great numbers into the Middle East. With a growing sense of gravity, this nation and our allies are divided over the question of whether the US should declare war on Iraq in order to bring down the regime of Saddam Hussein. We have a United Nations mandated international team of weapons inspectors combing the palaces of Hussein and the military installations of his regime.
That investigation, carried out with the cooperation of Iraq, has not found serious evidence of the marshalling of “weapons of mass destruction.” In face of steadily growing hesitance among US citizens and allies, the administration continues to move forward toward military preparedness for the mission of “regime change” in Iraq.
The ethical criteria for just war have a long history in western philosophy and theology. Among the many recent restatements of just war criteria, ethicist Mark Douglas of Columbia Theological Seminary provides one of the most instructive. The just conditions for entering war—the jus ad bellum—include:
- Just Cause. Usually self-defense or defense of an aggrieved third party;
- Right Intention. Matching the actual motives for going to war with the just cause;
- Right Authority. War is declared by a publicly recognized authority with both the power to mobilize armed forces and the ability to judge whether the jus ad bellum criteria are met.
- Reasonable Hope of Success. Avoiding wars that cannot be won and that will only cost additional human lives.
- Last Resort. Trying every form of resolution short of direct violence first.
- Announcement of Intention. Stating reasons for going to war to the other side(s).
- Proportionality. Balancing probable losses and costs for all parties against probable benefits.
Then there are just war criteria that apply to the conduct of the war—the means by which war is fought. This involves the use of jus in bello criteria:
How do these criteria, shaped across centuries in the contexts of pre-modern conditions of warfare, offer guidance for citizens and governmental leaders in the present crisis with Iraq?
Is our movement toward an attack on Iraq in the service of either “self-defense” or “the defense of an aggrieved third party”? The Kurds in Iraq certainly qualify as an “aggrieved” third party, having experienced hundreds of thousands of deaths by lethal chemical assault at the hands of the Hussein regime in previous years. However, it could be said that our war with Iraq in 1991 addressed that outrage, as well as turning back Iraqi’s incursion into the oil fields of Kuwait. We should remember the destruction and loss of civilian life that accompanied our ’91 victory in Iraq, as well as the harsh sanctions we imposed on Iraq for years after that war that have impacted on the health and welfare of Iraqi families and children.
It is important to ask ourselves whether Sadam Hussein is now serving for the US as a convenient, concrete surrogate for the far less identifiable and more diffuse threat constituted by the al-Qaida network. If we are unable to document that he has the “weapons of mass destruction” that make his nation a threat to peace in the Middle East, by just war criteria we should avoid unilaterally rushing ahead of the United Nations’ investigations of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
This leads to a second consideration: It is dangerous and presumptuous for the United States to place its own initiatives and prerogatives relating to making war on Iraq ahead of the serious work undertaken by the Security Council of the United Nations. Mark Douglas writes, “Internationally, the advent of political structures such as the United Nations and NATO means that international consensus building is not only possible, but perhaps even politically necessary in an era of global interdependence.” Should we follow a policy of unilateral disarming of Sadam Hussein, we undermine the important increase in seriousness and effectiveness evident in the UN member nations’ response to this crisis. We also violate both the “Right Intention” and the “Right Authority” criteria for just war. Further, by discounting these features of what the UN can offer, we press Saddam Hussein and Iraq into a defensive war that undermines internal resistance to his regime, and unifies a nation that has strong elements opposed to his continuing rule.
Finally, for us to act unilaterally and arbitrarily to make war on Iraq will likely deepen sympathy for our enemies and give impetus to those inclined to support al-Qaida’s war of subversive and guerilla violence.
Would not President Bush and the United States be well advised to slow down our initiation of war on Iraq? Is short-term satisfaction from a unilaterally imposed “regime change” worth the long-term damage of morally isolating ourselves from the increasingly interactive and participatory processes of global governance?
For Mark Douglas’s article referenced here, see the journal Theology Today, Vol 59, No. 4, 2003, pp. 525-545. For an online bibliography of recent efforts to employ just war criteria go to www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm.
More Opinion articles
]
© 2000-2003 by the Center for Ethics, Emory University. Some rights reserved.
Thank you for this insight. However, I must ask, why is it that in 2002 and the first three months of 2003, when George Bush was so obviously planning all out war and merely playing lip service to the concerns of his own people and the rest of the world, the so called "moral leaders" in this country were SILENT! The problem that I see here is that the "moral leadership" in this country i.e. the deacons, pastors, priests, bishops, church fathers, etc. are not truely moral leaders at all, but politicians. They seem to be afraid to stand up and speak the truth to their decidedly conservative congregations. Even more insidious, however is that the churches have clearly defined political agendas and are willing to help "their boy" blur the moral and ethical lines for political gains later. In NAZI Germany while many Christian churches did try to help Jews escape Hitler's minions, many churches became Hitler's partners in genocide. No government is immune to bad behavoir, including our own, and it is the duty of the moral leaders of any country to show the fortitude and courage to stand up to public opinion and to politicians. It is their sacred duty to shout the truth from the rooftops no matter what the cost!
Posted by: Eric Dixon at September 6, 2003 08:17 PMYou are so right, Eric. Far too many churches and church leaders were actually supportive of the neo-con ideas and actions!
But also - I'm so glad I discovered this "ethics news & views" site. Perhaps this is a case of "Better late than never!"
Posted by: Lee Winey at December 18, 2003 06:23 AM