What Makes A Just War?

[Starwynd]

What is the Catholic teachings on what makes a just war?

Was the Iraq war, both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm, endorsed by the church? Why or why not?

 

[CapIV]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

 

[FightingFat]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

John Paul II said: -

Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it.

and: -

Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.

 

[Ruthie]

[2309](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2309.htm’) 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;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• 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.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

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

 

[Verisimilitude]

prudential judgment - in this case the US Congress- has legitimate authority only when they follow established law. If the prudential authority acts contrary to that law the decisions made are unjust even if the cause is just.

2309 also does not suggest it is a transferable from a stronger nation like the US to a weaker nation like Bosnia, Iraq, South Korea, Kuwait or other such places America is doing these things.

Christ tells many parables about helping our neighbor but in none of them does He suggest weapons of war as a means to spread the Good News or to break the peace in order to make it.

The Church gives us the way to determin if all these wars/policies are just or not and determining that, we make rational decisions to support with a free vote or not what our well formed conscience tells us to do.

Iraq War 2003 is something altogether different. We attacked first without a declartion of war. We broke the peace, thin as it was.

 

[Wirraway]

prudential judgment - in this case the US Congress- has legitimate authority only when they follow established law. If the prudential authority acts contrary to that law the decisions made are unjust even if the cause is just. …

Iraq War 2003 is something altogether different. We attacked first without a declartion of war. We broke the peace, thin as it was.

the US has employed military force over 200 times on foreign shores since the 1790s, only five times has war been declared, so declarations of war are not necessary under constitutional law.

would a preemptive strike by the US Navy against Japanese forces in November 1941 been unjust if it could have stopped the raids and invasions that took place in December 1941?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

would a preemptive strike by the US Navy against Japanese forces in November 1941 been unjust if it could have stopped the raids and invasions that took place in December 1941?

This is a good question you raise, and one that I’d be interested in hearing the anti-war pundits answering. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but if you had good intel does a “pre-emptive strike” fall under the self defense aspect of “Just War”

 

[rpp]

the US has employed military force over 200 times on foreign shores since the 1790s, only five times has war been declared, so declarations of war are not necessary under constitutional law.

would a preemptive strike by the US Navy against Japanese forces in November 1941 been unjust if it could have stopped the raids and invasions that took place in December 1941?

This is a very interesting question.

I would say yes, it would have been morally justified. Here is why.

Japan first invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China proper in 1937. The stated intent of the Japanese invasion was to take raw materials, wealth and natural resources. It took control of an unstable political situation in China and the Japanese military and emperor lusted after the vast territories and natural resources (oil, food, metals, etc.) of China.

Japan, poor in natural resources, needed to import the raw materials required to conduct and continue their murderous invasion of China. (btw, by the end of WWII, it has been estimated that Japanese soldiers killed between 20 and 60 million Chinese civilians in the course of those nightmarish 14 years.

For an example of how the Japanese treated Chinese civilians in conquered territories, do a Google search on “Rape of Nanking”. But don’t do it on a full stomach or if you are feeling blue.

With the cooperation of the USA, Holland, the British, countries in that region began to stop exports to Japan in an effort to get them out of China. By late 1941, the shortages in Japan were becoming serious and the only choices left to Japan was to either stop the invasion of China, or invade their neighbors and take direct control of critical oil, tin, copper, rubber and other recourse production.

The Japanese military could not stomoach the idea of peace and the Emperor, cowed by the likes of Tojo and impressed Yamamoto, agreed to invade the nearby pacific and Indian Ocean countries.

One must not ignore that the USA had not reached the an end to solve the crisis through diplomacy until after the bombs started falling in Hawaii. The Japanese, on the other hand, had given up on diplomacy by early October and had been stringing along American diplomats and negotiators since. The militaristic Japan was never really interested in peace. They just wanted to deal with their enemies on their time schedule.

So yes, I think a “pre-emptive” strike against Japan in November of 1941 may have been justified had Americans come to realize that Japan had no desire for peace. But I am not certain such an attack could be called “pre-emptive”. Rather I think it might better be termed as join China in her struggling against unjust aggression.

 

[Wirraway]

a spoiling attack on the Pearl Harbor strike force would have damaged enough Japanese carriers so that all of the invasions would have been delayed, probably through the spring of '42, when the US war machine would start commissioning Essex class carriers and fast battleships. the diplomatic dance was to delay Japanese aggression until Spring '42 anyway, when forward defenses in the Philippines would have been completed (the wrong kind of defenses, but still …).

 

[rpp]

a spoiling attack on the Pearl Harbor strike force would have damaged enough Japanese carriers so that all of the invasions would have been delayed, probably through the spring of '42, when the US war machine would start commissioning Essex class carriers and fast battleships. the diplomatic dance was to delay Japanese aggression until Spring '42 anyway, when forward defenses in the Philippines would have been completed (the wrong kind of defenses, but still …).

We know now for certain that the Japanese were using diplomacy merely as a delaying tactic. As you asserting that the USA was too?

While I think that may be remotely possible, the feeling in America as was quite anti-war and isolationist. I should also point out that the isolationist Americans at the time were rather concerned about FDR and worried that he would go to War in Europe. Only a very few of the exceptionally well informed ever really thought that Japan was any kind of threat. In the US or the UK. That sentiment was expressed most eloquently by Churchill who described the Japanese as “yellow clowns”. That was one of the few times Churchill was so deadly wrong.

I would also think, given the current situation, it would also been just for America to join Great Britain in defending herself against Nazi aggression and help liberate Europe.

In America, it is easy to underestimate how politically powerful the isolationist and anti-war groups were. It is especially easy now in this age of instant worldwide communication and rapid jet travel. Americans, with oceans on both sides, a friendly neighbor to the north and a souther neighbor who was not a serious threat, felt little need to involve themselves in the affairs of other countries. Since the USA was, at that time, self-sufficient in food, oil, energy, metal, and nearly every other natural resource (rubber a notable exception) there were few compelling reasons for most Americans for their country to care about what was happening on the other side of the world; Europe or Asia.

This isolationist movement was so powerful that in the 1940 campaign, FDR had to promise he would not go to war in Europe.

Widespread isolationism in the USA came to an abrupt end as people listened to the radio and read their newspapers on Sunday and Monday, December 7 and 8, 1941.

For America, WWII was a just war.

I am not certain the same an be said about all the other wars, declared or otherwise, the US has engaged in.

 

[Wirraway]

We know now for certain that the Japanese were using diplomacy merely as a delaying tactic. As you asserting that the USA was too?..

this shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise. the Japanese government was using the talks as a short term evasion, the invasion and strike forces were already at sea. in fact, delay was not what the Japanese wanted.

US planners knew that a shooting war was inevitable (there was ample evidence through the diplomatic intercepts, but the operational naval code remained unbroken and the where and when remained unknown).

the Philippines, considered the likely location of an attack, were going through a big military buildup, which was not expected to be completed until the Spring of 1942 (which is why, on Dec. 7, Hawaii did not have its complement of B-17s and long range search planes, they had been diverted to the Philippines). this included the remilitarization of some facilities that had been stood down by prior treaties (the island fortress of Fort Drum), the training and expansion of the Philippine Army, the addition of more US ground and air forces including the heavy bombers and search planes, the addition of a few more ships to the Asiatic Fleet.

the US ordered the economic embargo that summer without having the actual military means to prevent the Japanese from simply taking what they needed in southeast asia and the south pacific. the Japanese knew they were facing a closing window of opportunity before the US buildup would make the seizure of oil and rubber assets difficult. so, in fact, the US wanted the delay more than the Japanese.

I can provide a few sources, but this is more or less common knowledge.

 

[rpp]

this shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise. the Japanese government was using the talks as a short term evasion, the invasion and strike forces were already at sea. in fact, delay was not what the Japanese wanted.

US planners knew that a shooting war was inevitable (there was ample evidence through the diplomatic intercepts, but the operational naval code remained unbroken and the where and when remained unknown).

the Philippines, considered the likely location of an attack, were going through a big military buildup, which was not expected to be completed until the Spring of 1942 (which is why, on Dec. 7, Hawaii did not have its complement of B-17s and long range search planes, they had been diverted to the Philippines). this included the remilitarization of some facilities that had been stood down by prior treaties (the island fortress of Fort Drum), the training and expansion of the Philippine Army, the addition of more US ground and air forces including the heavy bombers and search planes, the addition of a few more ships to the Asiatic Fleet.

the US ordered the economic embargo that summer without having the actual military means to prevent the Japanese from simply taking what they needed in southeast asia and the south pacific. the Japanese knew they were facing a closing window of opportunity before the US buildup would make the seizure of oil and rubber assets difficult. so, in fact, the US wanted the delay more than the Japanese.

I can provide a few sources, but this is more or less common knowledge.

This is a pretty good summary of the events in the Pacific leading up to the beginnings of hostilities.

Looking back at my previous post, I realize that I may have not been very clear in my remarks.

Specifically this statement.

While I think that may be remotely possible, the feeling in America as was quite anti-war and isolationist.

What I had in mind when I wrote this was overall public opinion. I believe that FDR, Secretary Hull fully expected a shooting war. Pretty much the entire military establishment thought that Japan was threat (though no one, except possibly MacArthur had any clue as to how efficient and skilled the Japanese military really was) and many in the military wanted to enter into the European theater.

While many contend that FDR manipulated the Japanese into attacking, I am not certain if I that is accurate. a large scalew war of conquest was central to the Japanese medium and long term plans and the invssion of China had been brewing for literally centuries. That the virtually all nations opposed Japan’s invasion and began economic sanctions, as we would do today I do not think qualifies as an FDR manipulation. Rather I think FDR was resigned to the fact that the Japanese invasion of China would degenerate into a large scale war involving the US.

(Many do not recall, for example, the the Phillipines were an American territory at the time which we got from Spain after the Spanish-American war in 1898. In fact, they had just elected Quezon as their first president and on January 1, 1942, America was scheduled to officially grant them their independance. Unfortunately, 3 weeks before this much anticipated handover, the Japanese invaded. After the war, in 1946, President Quezon asked the US grant the Phillipines their indepence on July 4. That day was chosen to honor and thank America for her sacrifice in liberating the Phillipines.)

I am beginning to wonder if looking at the motivations regarding the US entry into WWII is getting a bit off topic. I think we are discussing what makes a just war. As I stated previously, I think America’s entry and participation in both Europe and the Pacific were morally just (both because of and in spite of) the horrific carnage. This is also supported by America’s actions after hostilities ceased. We ensured that all the countries were liberated from the agressors, and which we occupied, were granted independence. This is in contrast to what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe. While occupying our enemy countries, we did not engage in large scale looting, theft or atrocities, we restored law and order, fed people and helped all the nations rebuild (think: Marshal Plan). We even, eventually, granted independance to our former enemies.

So I believe that, taken as a whole, America’s entry, participation and eventual conclusion were just and morally good. (Key phrase is “taken as a whole”; I am sure we also did not not so good things as well.)

What about other wars America has been in. Let’s talk about a very interesting one; The Spanish-American war. Was that just?

 

[goofyjim]

IMO, the last just war we had was WWII. It was necessary to stop a madman from attempting to wipe out a population. We have yet to finish counting the cost of the other wars because it has recently come to light that the number of suicides of Vietnam vets has now surpassed the actual combat deaths. This does not justify going to war by any means unless we are truly defending the country instead of trying to supplant another government. If anything, after 9/11 we should have just bombed Afghanistan in the hopes that we would have rid ourselves of the true perpetrator of the event.

 

[Wirraway]

rpp:

…

Looking back at my previous post, I realize that I may have not been very clear in my remarks.

Specifically this statement. “While I think that may be remotely possible, the feeling in America as was quite anti-war and isolationist”].

yeah, the public sentiment was isolationist but slowing changing, the draft was already going, Lend-Lease (and the strange “reverse” Lend-Lease in the pacific), and the undeclared naval war with Germany well underway, but congress was not in the mood for war. FDR was certainly doing all he could to move the country in that direction.

rpp:

What about other wars America has been in. Let’s talk about a very interesting one; The Spanish-American war. Was that just?

no doubt it fails the traditional test, and the insurrection that followed the SpanAm War in the philippines shows that as conquistadores we weren’t always welcome, but, on balance, for puerto rico, cuba, the philippines and the rest of our instant empire, it was a good thing for all.

BTW, there really were something like 200 instances where the USA used military force abroad, exclusive of declared wars, and, of course, not including the indian wars or the Civil War. we have an excellent record as a warrior nation: parts of China occupied for 90 years, the philippines for 40, parts of europe now for 60, interventions all over the Caribbean basin; mexico invaded twice, russia once, korea three times, even canada. and they still love us, and our culture, and everyone wants to immigrate here.

 

[Verisimilitude]

the US has employed military force over 200 times on foreign shores since the 1790s, only five times has war been declared, so declarations of war are not necessary under constitutional law.

Do you lump military actions like sending a few ships and soldiers to end piracy for a few weeks worth of action, or a ‘rescue operation’ as in Granada; with tens of thousands of troops and equipment for years in places like Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, and Iraq?

Christ was asked about divorce, and His response is valid here:

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

War is the violent divorce between nations and people. (I hope you are not one of those who feel God’s law does not apply to secular life just because people have the legal right to not believe in religion in this country. I have met 3 Catholics here that have said exactly that. It is impossible to get past this point if you believe that.)

America has it’s civil law; the Constitution, and if our leaders support fining me $100 for going 7 mph over the speed limit I support holding them to the law as well when it comes to war. We are the People the Constitution talks about and we have a responsibility to it.

No body is perfect when it comes to both faith and/or civil fidelity, but the public advocation of positions/actions that violate the principles of one and/or both (God’s Law, Civil Law) is simple error that can have grave consequences like unjust war and abortion on demand as ‘legal’ acts.

would a preemptive strike by the US Navy against Japanese forces in November 1941 been unjust if it could have stopped the raids and invasions that took place in December 1941?

Yes, it would have been unjust if we fabricated evidence to attack them, or if we were deceived by fabricated evidence but continued the fight against a nation once we found that evidence to be false, or claim as national interest the natural resurces of another nation to remove a tyrant in the process of securing that interest. It isn’t a valid comparrison to WW2 or Iraq.

No, if we knew of the planned attack in November by reliable means because we would not have been as surprised as they on Dec 7.

Your question is akin to going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby to avoid what occured. Instead of killing why not just change his circumstances? This is stuff for the Sci-Fi channel.

John 3:12
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

When do you punch a man before he punches you? More to the point, when do you go out of your way to punch him before he punches a stranger? Is it different when it invloves other nations and not individuals?

Do you apply 'Love your neighbor as yourself" as justification to the protection extended by force of arms to the stranger you go out of your way to help? This is intended specifically for individuals but has largley been adopted for nations by those that support this war and defined as our Christian duty.

Mark 13:23
"But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

History is old news.

Matthew 24:43
"But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.

The head of the house is not commanded to leave his own house in search of the thief to kill him before he breaks in.

The theme is pretty simple and consistant to apply in both a personal and national sense particularly when the bible influences our law as it does.

John 14:27
" Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

 

[Wirraway]

Do you lump military actions like sending a few ships and soldiers to end piracy for a few weeks worth of action, or a ‘rescue operation’ as in Granada; with tens of thousands of troops and equipment for years in places like Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, and Iraq?

yessir. years ago, to support some point I was trying to make on a political board, I compiled a list of these actions, they include everything from the VN war to actions where marines storm ashore, burn out the local palace and leave; to long term interference, as was done in the carib basin; the philippine thing was pure empire building; the wilson’s mexico intervention was pure retaliation and a dress rehearsal for WW1; the russian invasion was to aid the white generals and Stop The Reds. orchestrated by liberal and conservative administrations, of all parties. we are, undeniably, a warrior culture.

Verisimilitude:

Christ was asked about divorce, and His response is valid here:

War is the violent divorce between nations and people. (I hope you are not one of those who feel God’s law does not apply to secular life just because people have the legal right to not believe in religion in this country. I have met 3 Catholics here that have said exactly that. It is impossible to get past this point if you believe that.)

America has it’s civil law; the Constitution, and if our leaders support fining me $100 for going 7 mph over the speed limit I support holding them to the law as well when it comes to war. We are the People the Constitution talks about and we have a responsibility to it.

No body is perfect when it comes to both faith and/or civil fidelity, but the public advocation of positions/actions that violate the principles of one and/or both (God’s Law, Civil Law) is simple error that can have grave consequences like unjust war and abortion on demand as ‘legal’ acts.

Yes, it would have been unjust if we fabricated evidence to attack them, or if we were deceived by fabricated evidence but continued the fight against a nation once we found that evidence to be false, or claim as national interest the natural resurces of another nation to remove a tyrant in the process of securing that interest. It isn’t a valid comparrison to WW2 or Iraq.

I’m not seeing your point, or how abortion figures into a naval question.

Verisimilitude:

No, if we knew of the planned attack in November by reliable means because we would not have been as surprised as they on Dec 7.

Your question is akin to going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby to avoid what occured. Instead of killing why not just change his circumstances? This is stuff for the Sci-Fi channel.

any good history of signals intelligence pre-ww2 (I’ll have to think of a couple of titles) will explain this. but in a nutshell, the Japanese diplomatic code had been broken and the allies were aware that a war crisis was looming in late november, early december, with listening stations all over the pacific waiting for the infamous war warning in the plain language “winds” message to Japanese diplomats. but the diplomatic traffic never mentioned time or place.

the problem is that the pacific is a huge place. american planners assumed that any attack would be in the philippines (google, War Plan Orange). aggravating this was the decision to use the very limited resources available for interception and decryption on the administrative “admirals code”, rather than the operational code used by the navy, called JN25. the admirals code was a dry well, the JN25 code, which would have provided more clues to the Hawaii raid, was never penetrated (it was modified shortly before, in any event). the actual date and place was never committed to radio, the operational plans for the HA attack were hand delivered.

still, with absolutely perfect hindsight and getting all the lucky breaks, including not making assumptions about Japanese intentions based on American planning, not denying major commands complete access to all decrypted intercepts (e.g., the “bomb plot” message was denied to the HA commanders), breaking JN25 early enough to decrypt the numerous intercepts pre-PH, its possible to narrow down HA as the most likely target.

no one is saying that the US had the political will to conduct a spoiling attack, but the USN unquestionably had the capability to cripple Japanese aggression with a first strike until that aggression could be deterred by the massive naval building program already underway. that means indochina, malaysia, singapore, indonesia, the philippines, guam and other places don’t have to be playgrounds for the Japanese army and millions of casualties are avoided.

Verisimilitude:

When do you punch a man before he punches you?

well, most people seem to throw these huge looping roundhouses or ridiculous bolos. so I’d advise stepping inside the swing with a couple of short jabs. so the answer is, when he starts his swing.

Verisimilitude:

More to the point, when do you go out of your way to punch him before he punches a stranger?

no.

Verisimilitude:

Is it different when it invloves other nations and not individuals?

is what different?

Verisimilitude:

Do you apply 'Love your neighbor as yourself" as justification to the protection extended by force of arms to the stranger you go out of your way to help? This is intended specifically for individuals but has largley been adopted for nations by those that support this war and defined as our Christian duty…

me personally? no. do you think I’m nuts? the guy might be carrying.

 

[Verisimilitude]

yessir. years ago, to support some point I was trying to make on a political board, I compiled a list of these actions, they include everything from the VN war to actions where marines storm ashore, burn out the local palace and leave; to long term interference, as was done in the carib basin; the philippine thing was pure empire building; the wilson’s mexico intervention was pure retaliation and a dress rehearsal for WW1; the russian invasion was to aid the white generals and Stop The Reds. orchestrated by liberal and conservative administrations, of all parties. we are, undeniably, a warrior culture.

What we are and what we should be is an age old dilema. Our civil law still applies. Your examples do not support the just war doctrine, but do support the false notion that the ends justifies the means.

I’m not seeing your point, or how abortion figures into a naval question.

The point is what was intended for humanity by God in the beginning and why our Cain-ish type actions don’t change God’s law. The ethic of life as taught by the Church means we should not be so careless with it when it regards other humans. It’s very Protestant to put nation above/equal to God- Catholics should know better.

any good history of signals intelligence pre-ww2 …were hand delivered.

WW2 is a non-issue: a formal war was declared, fought, and won. The only comparrison to it and 9/11 is planes were used and we were surprised.

well, most people seem to throw these huge looping roundhouses or ridiculous bolos. so I’d advise stepping inside the swing with a couple of short jabs. so the answer is, when he starts his swing.

And how does that apply to a nation and it’s law such as ours? Did Saddam swing at us through our no-fly zones and sanctions?

no.

Supporting the war in Iraq is doing just that.

is what different?

Using violence to solve your issue.

me personally? no. do you think I’m nuts? the guy might be carrying.

Being flippant has no value.

 

[otjm]

What is the Catholic teachings on what makes a just war?

Was the Iraq war, both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm, endorsed by the church? Why or why not?

One of the better discussions I have seen on Just War Theory is by George Weigle; you may have to look around for it. It was written several years ago. Wegel is not exactly what you would call a liberal, either politically or in terms of faith. It is a worthwhile read.