Iraq and the "Just War" Theory

by Brandon Jubar

President Bush has asked Congress to pass a resolution granting him the authority to use all means that he deems necessary to deal with the Iraqi problem. The goal, of course, sounds very magnanimous -- enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, defend United States national security interests against the tremendous threat posed by Iraq, and bring peace and order to that troubled region of the world.

The President and his minions have even gone so far as to accuse Congressmen of being unpatriotic if they do not support this resolution. The implication is that any true American can see what needs to be done. And every true American should support this latest step in the war on terrorism.

At a gut level, we understand the idea of righteous anger, and we want to see someone brought to justice for the terrorist attacks of September 11th. We have also seen, heard, or read about the atrocities that Saddam Hussein has heaped upon his people. As all of these "wrongs" start piling up, it is seemingly obvious that something must be done. So what is a Catholic to do?

"Just War" Criteria

The Catholic Church believes we should always strive to utilize peaceful means to resolve our differences, and "all citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war" (Catechism, no 2308). On the other hand, the Church realizes that there are times when the use of military force for defense can be justified. Such justifiable use is often known as a "just war".

In order for any war to be considered "just" in the eyes of the Church, there are four (4) specific criteria that must be met. Using these criteria, let us examine the President's proposed military action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Grave, Certain, and Lasting Damage

First of all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [must be] lasting, grave, and certain."

Thus it would be right to go to war against the perpetrators of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. The damage caused by those attacks was definitely grave and certain, and the pain felt by this nation will last for quite a while.

However, we are not aware of any adequate evidence proving that Iraq was involved in those horrifying events. Nor have we seen evidence of an imminent attack against the United States involving Iraq. Using military force against a nation because their leader is a certifiable bad guy and probably has ties to terrorists does not satisfy this first criterion. Neither does "protecting America's interests" rise to the level of a "just war".

Use of Force Should Not Cause Greater Evil

Second, the use of arms must not produce evils that are greater than the evil to be eliminated. In other words, the "ends" do not justify the "means". With today's weapons, this second criterion may be the most difficult to pass. Weapons of mass destruction virtually guarantee that the loss of life will go far beyond what can be considered "just".

Although it is unlikely that the United States would use such weapons, there would most definitely be a massive military campaign needed to remove Hussein's regime from power. One can only guess at the effects such a campaign would have upon the civilian population, who have already suffered through years of warfare, repressive government, and an outside world that has nearly embargoed them to death. How much more must these people endure?

A Real Chance of Success

The third criterion seems like an easy one -- there must be a real chance of success. With the United States military machine fully mobilized against a tiny nation such as Iraq, how can we not succeed, right?

The problem, of course, is that the "outcome" of a war is more than simply deciding who is still standing when the fighting stops. Winning in combat is just the beginning. President Bush has stated that one of his goals is to bring international peace and security to that region of the world. Will the use of military might to oust the government of a country in that region bring us closer to that goal? Many people believe it is doubtful. In fact, such a tactic could very easily make things even more unstable and insecure.

Another of the President's goals is to safeguard Americans, both at home and abroad. Will crushing Hussein's regime bring an end to terrorism? Or will it trigger even more attacks against the arrogant Westerners?

Exhaust All Other Means

And finally, all other means to avoid war and end the conflict must have been exhausted, having been shown to be impractical or ineffective. The key, of course, is not merely "avoidance" but a legitimate attempt to resolve the conflict.

The United States Council of Catholic Bishops has suggested that the President focus on several alternatives to war, including continued diplomatic efforts and weapons inspections, more effective enforcement of the military embargo, maintenance of political sanctions, and carefully focused economic sanctions that do not cause more harm to the Iraqi people.

The general response from the Administration is that we will not cower in the face of terrorism.

But seeking more peaceful means is not cowering in the least. In fact, it usually takes a great deal more courage, ingenuity, and finesse to resolve conflicts non-violently.

So what's the bottom line? It's simply this: There are no easy answers. Might doesn't make right. And in the immortal words of a bumper sticker I saw the other day, "War doesn't decide who's right, it decides who's left."

Life Applications:

Do you support the use of military action against Iraq? Why or why not?

How much time have you spent studying, contemplating, and praying about this question?

What would Jesus do?

Copyright 2002 by Brandon Jubar   
All rights reserved.