In our day whether or not war can be justified has again become a major concern.

Early Christian statements, following the general principles of the New Testament, disapprove of participation in war. It was not until after Christianity was proclaimed the state religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine that the so-called question of ‘just war’ emerged. Augustine (9354-430), the first theologian to deal with the question of ‘just war’ believed that Christians had no right to defend themselves with violence, but concluded that, if necessary, violence could be used to defend the innocent against evil.  Despite Augustine’s emphasis on ‘defense’ what he envisioned subsequently became the basis of what we today speak of as the ‘just war theory.’

Walter Wink, in his trilogy of recent books on engaging the powers of domination, points out that what most people call ‘just war’ really has very little to do with ‘just war theory.’  Some confuse it with the entirely different idea of ‘holy war’ or ‘crusade,’ which knows no limits and admits no ethical quandaries (the conquest of Canaan, or World War I – “the war to end all wars”). Others consider it a means of supporting a ‘political war’ or a ‘war of national interests’ (Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, or the US involvement in Vietnam, justified not by ethical reflection but merely by the presumed necessities of power politics, “might makes right”). Still others justify wars pursued for the sake of a leader’s ‘tenacity’ or as ‘retribution’ (Thatcher and the Falkland Islands, or Bush and the invasion of Iraq). Unfortunately, most people, including Christians, have simply endorsed the side in which they happened to be as engaging in a ‘just war,’ without ever considering the principles of just war theory.

Just war theory in its current form is really a very serious, rigorous and complex ethical discipline.  Contemporary writers on Just War Theory generally list seven conditions that must be met before a decision to go to war is considered justified:  (1) The war must have a just intention, (2) It must be waged by a legitimate authority, (3) It must be formally declared, (4) It must be fought with a peaceful cause, (5)  It must be a last resort, (6) There must be reasonable hope of success, and (7)  The means used must possess proportionality to the end sought.

Sometimes these seven conditions are supplemented by three additional rules or conditions: (1)  Noncombatants must be given immunity, (2)  Prisoners must be treated humanely, and (3)  International treaties and conventions must be honored.

I appreciate the effort of just war theory advocates to consider war a moral issue. But, to live a moral life means to form binding intentions and to act on them, even in the face of adverse circumstances. By their very nature, moral principles need to be highly resistant to making exceptions. Unfortunately however, the focus on ‘right’ or ‘just intention’ seems to be more intent on finding a way around ‘binding intentions,’ that is, for making exceptions. For example, there are those who believe we may perform an act that certainly will kill many civilians as long as we do not intend to kill them. In practice, particularly in Afghanistan, this has led to the acceptance of astronomical civilian casualty rates. Add to these deaths those made inevitable by war’s disruption of farming, sanitation, food distribution and population displacement, and the rates are catastrophic. In other words the category of ‘just intent,’ like all of the other just war criteria, is all too easily manipulated.  Moreover, how is anyone able to know if the cause is just when the first casualty of modern war is truth? The Gulf of Tonkin off Vietnam was evidently ‘staged’ in order to gain congressional support for war. Reasons of state are often smoke screens that change as propaganda requires (witness the US invasion of Iraq).

Not only has our human capacity for making binding intentions proven to be limited, but the historical circumstances in which we are called upon to make them have changed radically during the last century. We who live in contemporary western society, accustomed to unprecedented comfort and privilege, have been faced with a new challenge. We no longer live in a vacuum. We exist and act in a global context – a political, social, cultural and economic reality – in which national security no longer lies in strategies of containment and consolidated military, economic, political and sacred power.

We have also experienced a radical progression in technological achievements. Weapons of mass destruction (including the atomic bomb),  computerized robotics (pilotless planes), cybernetics, rocketry, etc., have all completely altered the concept of just war. Future wars between opponents of relatively equivalent potential can lead not only to the annihilation of an opponent, but to self-annihilation. And even in more limited skirmishes with opponents such as the Taliban, power no longer guarantees success. In Iraq, and now in Afghanistan we are learning that power is increasingly limited to providing conditions that may, or may not, lead to success.

Given this critical juncture in human history, I no longer find it possible to consider any war as “just” or “good.” So, rather than attempting to justify war, violence and death, I believe we ought to focus our attention on affirming and striving for peace, reconciliation and life. The heart of the problem we face lies not with our technical achievements, nor with the global context in which we now live, but in the pandemic of  fear that has in recent years erupted in our world. When each one becomes afraid of everyone, trust is destroyed, and the terror of the unpredictable surfaces . Fear always has a centrifugal tendency. The more fearful humans are, the more secretive they become, and the more secretive they become the more they resort to using forceful means of dealing with others. It is no surprise that the pinnacle of power in our present world is to be equipped with atomic weapons. North Korea and Iran are perfect examples.

Mistrust can’t be eradicated through cleverness and diplomacy. Every serious observer of the current scene is aware of that. This  means that we can’t move forward until we admit that whoever we are and whatever positions we represent, we are mistrustful as well as mistrusted.  And since our mistrust is related to the values we hold inalienable and refuse to give up,  we need to focus on those values that can be agreed upon, and from this base begin to neutralize one another’s mistrust and fear. There is no simple answer. The mistrust that has developed over decades, will take time to dismantle, but it can be done. “The common interests of the peoples are stronger still than those that keep them in opposition to one another,” says the Jewish scholar Martin Buber.  Step by step through intentional dialogue and increased mutual understanding at least a sense of detente (neutralizing balance) can eventually be achieved.

Comments (0) >>

Write comment

You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.