Is Iraq a Just War

[gilliam]

I couldn’t find the just war thread, so I am starting another. It is important to note that the determination if a nation should engage in war or not is:

1. determined prior to hostilities
2. determined by the civil authorities who are responsible for the civilian lives (not by the clergy)

Dr. James Turner Johnson informs us that The just war tradition came into being during the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community. With deep roots in both ancient Israel and classical Greek and Roman political thought and practice, the origins of a specifically Christian just war concept first appeared in the thought of Augustine. A systematic just war tradition came only some time later, beginning with Gratian’s Decretum in the middle of the twelfth century, maturing through the work of two generations of successors, the Decretists and the Decretalists, and taking theological form in the work of Thomas Aquinas and others in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Later in the Middle Ages, and particularly during the era of the Hundred Years War, this canonical and theological conception of just war was further elaborated by incorporation of ideas, customs, and practices from the chivalric code and the experience of war, from renewed attention to Roman law, especially the jus gentium, and from the developing experience of government.

There are three elements to the just war tradition. As Aquinas summed it up in the Summa Theologica:

(1) First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”

(2) Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”

(3) Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. *The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”

 

[gilliam]

Over the years corollaries have been added to the just war tradition, but the basic three elements have remained in place. The following is from the current Catholic Catechism :

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; (2)
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; (2)
• there must be serious prospects of success; (2)(3)
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (3)

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.** (1)**

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. (1)

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107 (1)

The Catechism then goes on to talk about how a war should be fought.

Note the ends do not justify the means in Catholic thought. Also note that once a country is occupied the protection of the people in that country is the reponsibility of the occupier.

 

[gilliam]

It seems to me that the arguement that the war in Iraq was not a just war hinges on the fact that WMDs have not been found. However if those who made the decision to go to war (the president and congress) were certain that WMDs existed and would be used against the US, then the war would be justified on those grounds. If the US was certain that Saddam would inflict harm on the US (as Russia told us) then the war would be justified.

Aquinas required that for a war to be just, sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention are required. I think it is obvious that these conditions were satisfied prior to the war in Iraq.

It boils down to the call of the Congress and the US President, and their immortal souls.

 

[gilliam]

From an interesting Blog:

Just The War Facts, Ma’am

Referring to WMD as the “main” justification for war, even if true (a claim with which I would take issue), is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether, absent WMD as an argument, there was sufficient justification for war. Look at the actual authorization for war passed by Congress in 2002. In complex matters, we write contracts because, with time, memories fade, interests change, and commitments waver. HR 144 lists at least 11 reasons for authorizing force against Iraq:

a) Repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire
b) Interfering with efforts of UN weapons inspectors
c) Continuing to possess and develop WMD
d) Aiding and abetting terrorist organizations
e) Repression of its citizenry
f) Refusing to release prisoners wrongly detained
g) Failing to return property wrongly seized from Kuwait
h) Attempting to assassinate former President Bush in 1993
i) Firing on US and Coalition forces who were enforcing UN Resolutions
j) Harboring al Qaeda terrorists
k) Failure to comply with UN Resolutions 678, 687, 688, 949, and others

There were other reasons as well, broader strategic reasons like restoring international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region, propagating democracy, etc.

Now according to Section 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are four criteria for a just war

So let’s take these four criteria, one at a time.
Criterion 1
Lasting: Saddam had been in power and causing misery and death for three decades, and his sons appeared to be next in line to continue their father’s “work”. And if we’re going to use hindsight to throw out the WMD rationale, how about including, then, the corruption of the UN through the Oil-For-Food scandal, where a rogue state was able to use illegal cash to bribe the very body that was supposed to be monitoring its compliance.
Grave: If you look at the list above, even if you strip out items b) and c) having to do with WMD, you still have a pretty compelling set of reasons. Especially the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who had been systematically killed and oppressed.
Certain: Again, even setting aside the WMD issues (which seemed certain to everyone at the time), there is no doubt that Saddam would continue his nefarious behavior.

Criterion 2
Impractical: Saddam was a murderous tyrant. What means, other than war, have been used successfully to stop such people?
Ineffective: We had tried economic sanctions, military no-fly zones, embargoes, diplomatic isolation, targeted strikes, inspection regimes, etc. etc. etc. We had tried to get Saddam to comply for more than a decade, and to no avail.

Criterion 3
Prospects for success: No one ever doubted that the Coalition could win a war. And with good reason, in retrospect…

Criterion 4
Proportionality: There can be no debate on this criterion; the data simply don’t support any other conclusion. As MOJ points out, according to some (non-Bush-friendly) sources, there were fewer than 20,000 civilian deaths in Iraq in 18 months. That was an average year for Saddam’s regime, according to some authorities. In addition, the technological capabilities of the US made proportionality more feasible. The ability to target precision weapons sharply reverses a millenium-long trend toward more collateral casualties, and broadens the scope of a just war.

Conclusion
Based on this analysis, the war appears to be just. Moreover, I have never read an analysis of the Iraq War which directly applied the Church’s just war criteria and come to the conclusion that the war was unjust. (Please send me a link if you have seen one.) Most people simply believe the war has to be unjust, and assume the Church’s teaching has to support this position.

But an assertion is not an argument. And I believe the most negative thing you can say at this point is that the war may be unjust, but the question is inconclusive.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

1. Nobody is saying it wasn’t Bush’s decision. That is understood *
2. You seem to think that we had to go to war against Iraq to punish it. Bit we didn’t. The rhetoric was “regime change; regime change!” Bush wanted to insert a new government [don’t say a puppet government] and a new political system in Iraq. **It was a rebuilding exercise…not a punishment one! **If Saddam broke UN rules, which many countries do [including Israel], then let the UN deal with it. Bush could have used it as an opportunity to show how worthless and ineffective the UN is.
3. Rightful intentions: yes replacing their government with our puppets is rightful…fine I’ll buy into that. When do we invade the rest of the middle east, Africa, N. Korea, China, and South America *

If you think **all possible means ***of avoiding this conflict were used prior to the conflict, then you are living in a very rich personal fantasy world.

The list of Iraq’s violations are short compared with many countries. I don’t see anything here that would warrent an invasion and half-baked occupation, but…oh wait…wait…Saddam tried to kill “Pa-Pa”–stop the presses…Saddam will pay or trying to kill Pa-Pa.

This war is a disaster and a set-back. Let’s learn from our mistakes…admit when we were wrong, so we can be smarter in the future.*

 

[gnjsdad]

Excellent post. I hope it generates a lot of discussion.

Whether the U.S attack on Iraq meets the criteria of a just war is a question that obviously invites vigorous debate among Catholics. Since it is not a matter of binding belief, Catholics of good will are free to agree or disagree about this.

As Cathlics, we are required to form our opinions to conform to what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. In matters like abortion, that’s easy. Rome has spoken; that’s the end of it. With regard to whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a just war, even though it’s not morally binding, we ought at least give a preponderance of consideration to what the Pope and bishops have said before forming our opinions, and what they say is that this is not a just war.

Let me quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Statement on Iraq, given November 13, 2002.

Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. (Emphasis mine).

Thus, according to the U.S. Bishops, the first criteria of a just war, the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain, has not been met.

Since all four criteria must be met in order to make the case for a just war, the case could be closed right here. Nevertheless, the Bishops go on to say, with regard to the probability of success and proportionality (2 more conditions) that

We are concerned, however, that the war against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already long suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism (emphasis mine).

Here, also, the Bishops are saying that the war does not meet two other criteria: probability of success, and proportionality.

The Holy See was also vociferous in its opposition to the invasion.
In his Angelus message of March 16, 2003, the Pope said

The political leaders of Baghdad certainly have the urgent duty to collaborate fully with the international community to eliminate every reason for armed intervention…

But I would also like to remind the member countries of the UN, and especially those who make up the Security Council, that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the UN Charter.

The U.S. clearly did not exhaust every option. The UN inspections were short-circuited in Bush’s mad dash to war.

Those who wish to read the documents I’ve quoted from can go to

americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

Let me quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Statement on Iraq, given November 13, 2002.

*Based on the facts that are known to us, */QUOTE]

Which is presicely why the decision is not left up to the bishops.

A part of what the bishops didn’t at the time know:

1. that Russia had told us that Saddam was actively planning an attack on American assets.
2. That just about every intelligence agency was telling the US that Saddam had WMD.

The CIA was telling the president it was certain that Saddam had WMD.

1. The UN was being bribed (which is where the US bishops wanted us to go for help).

 

[Catholicvegan]

Gilliam,

When Bush first gave Saddam “48 hours” to get out of Iraq, what was his reason? What words did we hear through every state of the Union address, every news broadcast involving the war and Bush? The words were “weapons of mass destruction.” Bush pulled a bait-and-switch on the American people. And, as is seen through his re-election, some Americans followed the switch. He gave us his reason, and he might have “been sure” that the weapons were there, but they weren’t. We never hear those words anymore. Next time, Mr. Bush, please be sure that the cause you are touting in front of America is a correct one, and that you aren’t getting it wrong. We found out the reality too late. Hundreds of brave American soldiers have died. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The deficit only gets larger. And Europe hates us more than ever. I hope Bush accomploshed what he wanted to.

Before Bush went into the Middle East to “spread democracy” he should have focused on protecting us. He is not the President of the world, he is President of the U.S. And, therefore, his job is to defend us. Maybe, just maybe, he should have finished finding Osama bin Laden and those directly responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, and not sending brave soldiers out to war and spending literally billions of dollars on this war.

Mr. Bush, I would just like to say that next time you feel the need to spread democracy, make sure the fake justification you provide us is at least somewhat sound?

 

[catsrus]

He is not the President of the world, he is President of the U.S.

Mr. Bush, I would just like to say that next time you feel the need to spread democracy, make sure the fake justification you provide us is at least somewhat sound?

again,

and in answer to the original question; no.

 

[gilliam]

Catholicvegan:

Gilliam,

When Bush first gave Saddam “48 hours” to get out of Iraq, what was his reason?

In the US congress, not the president authorizes war. HR 144 lists at least 11 reasons for authorizing force against Iraq:

a) Repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire
b) Interfering with efforts of UN weapons inspectors
c) Continuing to possess and develop WMD
d) Aiding and abetting terrorist organizations
e) Repression of its citizenry
f) Refusing to release prisoners wrongly detained
g) Failing to return property wrongly seized from Kuwait
h) Attempting to assassinate former President Bush in 1993
i) Firing on US and Coalition forces who were enforcing UN Resolutions
j) Harboring al Qaeda terrorists
k) Failure to comply with UN Resolutions 678, 687, 688, 949, and others

If you are stuck on WMD as the reason, it isn’t Bush’s fault. At least it shouldn’t be.

 

[Richardols]

I should hope that the next war Bush leads us into is better justified. We can hardly afford to pay for the current war and there has to be a pretty ironclad justification for the next war/invasion.

A war, say, that the Pope won’t oppose.

 

[gilliam]

Looks like some of those non-existant WMD sites were looted:

Apparently some of the looting that took place in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad was quite deliberately directed: the New York Times is reporting that looters hit specific Iraq weapons sites and stripped them bare, making off with components capable of building nuclear weapons. (Where they found such components in a country that conventional wisdom now tells us had no WMDs remains a mystery.) An Iraqi minister says he believes the weapons components were taken for sale and not for use in a weapons program.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

gilliam:

Looks like some of those non-existant WMD sites were looted:

Apparently some of the looting that took place in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad was quite deliberately directed: the New York Times is reporting that looters hit specific Iraq weapons sites and stripped them bare, making off with components capable of building nuclear weapons. (Where they found such components in a country that conventional wisdom now tells us had no WMDs remains a mystery.) An Iraqi minister says he believes the weapons components were taken for sale and not for use in a weapons program.

So we allowed Islamic terrorists to loot the weapons…that was very clever of Bush

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Richardols:

I should hope that the next war Bush leads us into is better justified. We can hardly afford to pay for the current war and there has to be a pretty ironclad justification for the next war/invasion.

A war, say, that the Pope won’t oppose.

It was smart to overextend our people in Iraq before we had even finished with Afganistan…besides, what possible use could we have of our military…did anybody else see what the Chinese did yesterday… ?

 

[gilliam]

Tom of Assisi:

So we allowed Islamic terrorists to loot the weapons…that was very clever of Bush

Now I am confused, are admitting now there were WMD? So you think the war was justified on those grounds then?

 

[gilliam]

Tom of Assisi:

It was smart to overextend our people in Iraq before we had even finished with Afganistan…besides, what possible use could we have of our military…did anybody else see what the Chinese did yesterday… ?

You are advocating that we go to war with China?

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

You are advocating that we go to war with China?

I suggest that not a few neo-conservatives might relish doing exactly so, along with North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, and a number of other international bad boys.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

gilliam:

In the US congress, not the president authorizes war. HR 144 lists at least 11 reasons for authorizing force against Iraq:

a) Repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire
b) Interfering with efforts of UN weapons inspectors
c) Continuing to possess and develop WMD
d) Aiding and abetting terrorist organizations
e) Repression of its citizenry
f) Refusing to release prisoners wrongly detained
g) Failing to return property wrongly seized from Kuwait
h) Attempting to assassinate former President Bush in 1993
i) Firing on US and Coalition forces who were enforcing UN Resolutions
j) Harboring al Qaeda terrorists
k) Failure to comply with UN Resolutions 678, 687, 688, 949, and others

If you are stuck on WMD as the reason, it isn’t Bush’s fault. At least it shouldn’t be.

We went to war…because they repressed their citizens??? How nice of us.

Listen, you seem to be stuck trying to establish that the war was “just.” I’ve moved beyond that, as you should too. Was the war a good idea? That’s the question. And obviously it has failed to be a good idea, especially the half-baked manner in which Bush has executed it.

It’s too late to sit and debate whether it was moral or not to invade Iraq (because of their WMDs…snicker snicker), it has been bungled from the start and continues to be–that’s our problem.

Read some history books on 20th century European and African politics. The parallels with Iraq are uncanny and frightening.

I’m glad Iraq no longer harbors terrorists by the way .

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

I suggest that not a few neo-conservatives might relish doing exactly so, along with North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, and a number of other international bad boys.

Cite them.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

gilliam:

You are advocating that we go to war with China?

I’m not the warmonger here…but what happens when China invades Taiwan as they voted to do yesterday? We are supposed to be allies with them. Should we just abondon them as you seem to have approved our doing with the Serbians?

We are spread way too thin is the point. We are unable to meet our commitments (like protecting the Taiwanese).