Just War Theory: why Richard Land and friends are wrong
By R. David Brown
After seeing George W. Bush’s evangelical comrade, Richard Land, on several panels discussing the election, the role of religion in our society and the war in Iraq, I thought it was worth revisiting one of the issues he was so vigorously discussing in the early days of the Iraq war – Just War Theory.
For those unfamiliar with the topic, Just War Theory was developed primarily by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica as a set of criteria that must be met prior to going to war and also in the conduct of war itself. While much of the scholarship on Just War is catholic, protestant and secular alike have embraced the concept and often use Just War as the standard when analyzing the appropriateness of military action.
Just War Theory was one of the favorite arguments used by the Christians on both the sides of the debate about the Iraq war and was employed often by evangelicals and other conservatives. As much now as then, I am surprised at the lack of diligence in the presentation of Just War, especially related to the accurate representation of scholarly interpretation of the theory and its application to the situation in Iraq. In many cases, it appears that there is a real thirst-for-blood rather than a well-reasoned, consideration of the theory.
Looking at the two key concepts - jus ad bellum (what conditions make it justifiable to go to war) and jus in bello (what conduct is right in war), a case for Just War fails on several of the necessary conditions. Examining jus ad bellum, the argument that the central criterion of “Right Intention” has been met because the United States seeks to remove the despot, Saddam Hussein, is an incorrect interpretation. While it is universally understood that Saddam Hussein is/was a brutal dictator and the intent to remove him admirable, it does not qualify as “Right Intention”. An examination of jus ad bellum and the criterion of “Right Intention” leads to a completely different interpretation: war can only be justified in response to aggression. In the case of Iraq, a direct act of aggression towards the U.S. (or possibly our allies) - neither of which occurred.
Assuming, for a moment, that the conditions that make it justifiable to got to war were met, jus in bello (right conduct in war) would also present several problems in declaring the satisfaction of Just War Theory. The first issue is the concept of “Proportionality”. The generally accepted interpretation of “Proportionality” is that the means employed should be proportional to the aim of war. That is to say, war should not be conducted in such a way as to inflict more harm (destruction) than it is intended to alleviate. In addition, there is a direct reference to the prohibition of the killing of civilians.
The interpretation of jus in bello (right conduct in war) by many evangelicals and other conservatives was to relate the events of September 11, 2001 and the suffering of the Iraqi people as justification and satisfaction of “Proportionality” - again, not in keeping with the generally accepted interpretation of the concept and also failing the test on the following grounds:
After seeing George W. Bush’s evangelical comrade, Richard Land, on several panels discussing the election, the role of religion in our society and the war in Iraq, I thought it was worth revisiting one of the issues he was so vigorously discussing in the early days of the Iraq war – Just War Theory.
For those unfamiliar with the topic, Just War Theory was developed primarily by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica as a set of criteria that must be met prior to going to war and also in the conduct of war itself. While much of the scholarship on Just War is catholic, protestant and secular alike have embraced the concept and often use Just War as the standard when analyzing the appropriateness of military action.
Just War Theory was one of the favorite arguments used by the Christians on both the sides of the debate about the Iraq war and was employed often by evangelicals and other conservatives. As much now as then, I am surprised at the lack of diligence in the presentation of Just War, especially related to the accurate representation of scholarly interpretation of the theory and its application to the situation in Iraq. In many cases, it appears that there is a real thirst-for-blood rather than a well-reasoned, consideration of the theory.
Looking at the two key concepts - jus ad bellum (what conditions make it justifiable to go to war) and jus in bello (what conduct is right in war), a case for Just War fails on several of the necessary conditions. Examining jus ad bellum, the argument that the central criterion of “Right Intention” has been met because the United States seeks to remove the despot, Saddam Hussein, is an incorrect interpretation. While it is universally understood that Saddam Hussein is/was a brutal dictator and the intent to remove him admirable, it does not qualify as “Right Intention”. An examination of jus ad bellum and the criterion of “Right Intention” leads to a completely different interpretation: war can only be justified in response to aggression. In the case of Iraq, a direct act of aggression towards the U.S. (or possibly our allies) - neither of which occurred.
Assuming, for a moment, that the conditions that make it justifiable to got to war were met, jus in bello (right conduct in war) would also present several problems in declaring the satisfaction of Just War Theory. The first issue is the concept of “Proportionality”. The generally accepted interpretation of “Proportionality” is that the means employed should be proportional to the aim of war. That is to say, war should not be conducted in such a way as to inflict more harm (destruction) than it is intended to alleviate. In addition, there is a direct reference to the prohibition of the killing of civilians.
The interpretation of jus in bello (right conduct in war) by many evangelicals and other conservatives was to relate the events of September 11, 2001 and the suffering of the Iraqi people as justification and satisfaction of “Proportionality” - again, not in keeping with the generally accepted interpretation of the concept and also failing the test on the following grounds:
(1.) as witnessed in the first Gulf War, civilian casualties would certainly be high (bringing the discussion current, some estimates place the number as high as 30,000). While there is some room for disagreement on what level of civilian casualty is acceptable, this loss of innocent life fundamentally fails jus in bello.
(2.) even if the regime of Iraq was not innocent, which is certainly accurate to say, the Iraqi civilian population is. The death of non-combatants is unacceptable in any modern interpretation jus in bello.
With the lack of support of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, one can only conclude that there must be some deeper desire on the part of evangelical leaders to promote war in the Middle East. Their euphoria regarding God’s divine intervention in the presidential election(s) has surely caused confusion in distinguishing between political opinion and sound religious/philosophical reasoning.
Richard Land, Jerry Falwell and the countless pastor-pundits who feel compelled to skew Just War Theory as means of furthering an aggressive interventionist foreign policy might want to consider a new tact - a more Christ-like, compassionate world view.
-----------------------
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2002 Statement on Iraq and Just War, here
-----------------------
technorati tag:
Just War
Richard Land
Aquinas
Iraq
posted by Political Zen at 12:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home