Sermons

Just War

There's no getting around it, armed conflict among groups of humans is a nearly universal part of the human repertoire. It's been around through most of history…resorted to with sadness or glee, with good reasons and bad, by nations of nearly every faith, race, color, and place.

There are some who would say that there are no good reasons to go to war, and that violence is an evil greater than any good that could come by going to war. This moral stance is called pacifism. Pacifism has its own logic and discipline and is usually tied to a religious system as well as being a moral stance. In the end, however, very few people can subscribe to a thorough-going pacifism. Most human beings have struggled between two poles: On the one hand, their sure knowledge that all war is destructive, that all war means that the children fishing from the bridge suffer and die, that all war is, in the stark word of one of its most famous generals, "Hell." And on the other hand, most of us, even most of the most moral and peaceful of us are unwilling to embrace pacifism and say that we would never resort to violence. For most of us, in the end, there are moral reasons to go to war.

Therefore, the question arises: If war is never good, what makes it sometimes right? This question ends up with two foci; under what conditions, however tragic, is it moral to engage in war, and, once one is engaged in a war, what are the limits of moral behavior in the conduct of war? In the West, these questions and the answers to them are called the Just War theory. Just War theory was first developed within Catholicism by St. Augustine, who was the first to depart from the absolute pacifism of early Christianity. In spite of its sectarian roots, Just War theory has received widespread acceptance within many religious and secular communities and is at present the most universally recognized means by which one can evaluate the morality of war. It is currently codified in International Law.

This theory has received most of its criticism through the ages by those who claim that it has been used to justify what others take to be either aggression or overly aggressive military tactics. Therefore, the invoking of Just War theory is sometimes looked upon with suspicion by those who work for peace. Nonetheless, ethicists, especially religious ethicists, and international lawyers continue to rely on this body of thinking.

Prior to the Iraq War in 1991, President Bush I and his advisers made a clear case for that campaign using just-war principles. Although in many people's minds it was a weak case, at least he tried it. Bush II and his administration are not even trying. They are only making the case that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is pragmatic in geo-political terms…that it is in our best interests. And many who oppose a pre-emptive strike are opposing it on simply pragmatic, geo-political terms: they are saying, for instance, that the reason not to strike at Iraq is that this would make terrorists more likely to strike at the US. But moral principles exist to help people get beyond merely pragmatic thinking; both to restrain our natural, human impulse to do what seems immediately to be in our best interest, and to give us the courage to do what is right even when doing right carries risk. We ignore this body of thinking at our peril both ways. We all need to ask ourselves, not what is pragmatic, but what is right.

Just War theory gives a constellation of criteria by which to judge a particular war, and we will go through each of the criteria and look at some of the apparent facts of the situation facing the world at the moment. But before I do that, let me say something about how this kind of sermon fits into Unitarian Universalist faith and practice.

We are first and foremost a free people, lodging in each individual person, the right and duty to determine what they believe and what they think is right. No minister can tell you what to believe. What I am about to say is offered as the light as I see it, through the lens of the wisdom of the ages and faiths of the world's people, as well as through my own heart and life…and it is not only my privilege to share that with you, it is what I am charged to do as your minister. No doubt some of you will differ with my conclusions or my use of this particular instrument of Just War thinking to reach them, or what I have taken to be the facts of the matter….or maybe with all three things! That is your sacred privilege. There is no UU political doctrine just as there is no UU religious doctrine. Our covenant with each other is not to coerce belief, political or religious, but to walk together in the search for truth. If we do not end up in exactly the same place, at least we will have had an enriching conversation.

The first criteria of a Just War is that it must be waged only as a last resort; that is, every effort must have been made to resolve the dispute by peaceful means using diplomatic and all other available channels before going to war. What is the status of the proposed invasion of Iraq in the light of this criteria? It appears that most of the other nations of the world do not think we have accomplished this task yet. It appears that 60% of the American people feel the same way. They want to see further work, particularly on UN Arms inspections to be tried and fail before we go to war.

The doctrine of Just War is a doctrine of war, and therefore a balance is allowed between "last resort" and prudence. If there were evidence that continuing to pursue an agreement on UN inspections was allowing the Iraqi government to put its own first strike into place, most would say that the right of self-defense would overbalance this first criteria of trying all possible avenues to avoid war. I don't think that any of us mere citizens want to be privy to such military detail, and unfortunately we cannot trust our government's information on these matters; this makes it hard for us as citizens to judge this balance of morality and prudence. But I believe that the rest of the world's leaders would be privy to this information, and if they found it convincing, they would be begging to join the invasion of Iraq. I don't see that move taking place, and so I judge that we are hurrying to War too fast, before having done what morality requires us to do.

Another criteria of Just War is that it may only be waged by a legitimate authority, which means authority at the highest possible level. The logic of this is that in disputes between lower authorities, appeal can always be made to a higher one for a resolution without recourse to war. It is this criteria, among others, which sets legitimate use of violence over and against terrorism. Terrorists, by definition, are not legitimate authorities. They may be seriously aggrieved, but they should be taking their case to a higher authority rather than engaging in violence. Even among Nations, use of force without authority sets a dangerous precedent. Is it acceptable for Pakistan preemptively to attack India because the India has weapons of mass destruction? We condemn the Chinese government for it's "regime change" in Tibet. If the European Union, which does not, on the whole, think much of our President, decided that it was in their best interest to remove him from power, we would be infuriated. Because we are stronger than they are, we do not, on a practical level, have to worry about such things. But most of our neighbors on the planet do have to worry, and they will not thank us for undermining their security with preemptive strike doctrines unless they can be convinced that Iraq is a clear and imminent threat…in which case, they would be relieved, as they were in 1991, to have us deal with the threat for everyone.

Thirdly, a just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. In other words, there must be just cause. Once again, prudence and self-defense are allowed. You don't have to wait until you've been attacked, necessarily, especially if that attack might be overwhelming. But you can't go to war just because you're nervous, you can't attack because you worry that you won't have access to a product you want, and you can't attack because you don't like the looks of the people on the other side of the border. You have to be able to show that you are acting in self-defense or to right a wrong. This is one aspect of the Just War theory that the administration has tried to sell. We are told that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ready to deliver, has hidden stockpiles of frightening biological and chemical weapons, and that there is a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So this proposed attack on Iraq is in part retaliation for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, and in part to prevent an even worse attack. This reasoning is allowed under Just War theory. I imagine that most of us believe that it should be permissible to disarm a nation that is ready and willing, or soon will be, to kill millions of people.

However, there appears to be no proof that Iraq is armed with weapons of mass destruction. Scott Ritter, who served as an officer in the Marine Corps in the Gulf War and as a UN weapons inspector from 1991-98, has spoken out in opposition to military action, saying "the rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation and there is no basis under international law for a nation to go to war against another nation based on speculation alone."

I myself find Scott Ritter's analysis and expertise to be very compelling, having heard his full case. Once again, I doubt very much if I, a simple citizen, would know how to weigh the evidence even if it were given to me. But I think that Ritter is as qualified as any person on the planet to do so. And, once again, I do not doubt for a moment that the leaders of France and Russia would be begging us to do something quick, if evidence existed that Iraq was as dangerous as Bush believes.

As to paying Iraq back for it's part in September 11: that is permitted under Just War theory…but it must be in proportion to the wrong suffered. In this matter, the old "eye for an eye" law is the absolute limit on what is allowed for revenge. And, of course, those who would like this nation to be a "Christian" nation might reflect on the fact that Jesus' standard of behavior is considerably higher than that. Be that as it may, if we had evidence that Iraq was behind September 11, we could consider a proportional response…three buildings, four airplanes, 4,000 people, perhaps a heart-shattering surprise attack. But no more. And, of course, that still leaves the matter of what the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda really are; we didn't seem to think a compelling case could be made for that until now.

A just war can only be attempted if it has serious prospects for success, and must not produce more evil than it eliminates. We're mostly assuming that our overwhelming technical sophistication will win the day, as it has for 30 years, but everyone over the age of 40 remembers the Viet Nam war, which was not won in spite of overwhelming technical sophistication, so there is room for questions here. This is where the question of possible terrorist strikes would be raised, as well. Other questions involve the "after-war" prospects. Here are some of the questions the Catholic Bishops asked in a letter to President Bush. :

How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work? Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability? Would war against Iraq detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against terrorism?

Some of these questions are questions that require more military knowledge than I have, but others are questions of national will. If we go through with this invasion, ARE we prepared to commit to what it will take to do more good than harm? We must remember that the ultimate goal of a just war must be to reestablish peace.

As a nation, our track record on this matter is not too good, sometimes because the national will was not there, but perhaps more often because it is harder to create "regime change" than is obvious on the surface. History shows that unilateral interventions led by the US to install democracies have been disasters. Examples include Iran (1954), Chile (1973), Afghanistan (1980's), Nicaragua (1980's), and…irony of ironies, Iraq (1988). In many of these cases, US intervention resulted in the establishment of reactionary governments with dictators such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Augusto Pinochet, and Saddam Hussein, who are responsible for atrocities against their own people. Even the most recent intervention in Afghanistan has not produced a stable government; the current Afghan regime is struggling with an increase of ethnic factionalism and a recent assassination attempt on their new president. Will a military operation in Iraq be any more successful? Unless we have a plan, going to war is not a moral option.

Just War theory, finally, requires that the conduct of war distinguish between military and non-military targets. Although this is probably the trickiest part of the theory, there is no doubt that the use of massive military force to remove the current government of Iraq could have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. The Church of England Bishops have come out against invasion for that reason, among others.

The list of religious bodies which has spoken out against beginning a war with Iraq in a unilateral, preemptive way, is impressive; it includes ourselves and virtually all the largest religious bodies in the nation, including some which are usually very conservative. The reason for this impressive show of unanimity from the usually fractured people of faith is that the criteria of Just War suggest that we are still on very shaky moral grounds if we attack alone, attack without proof that we are in overwhelming danger, or attack to bring down a government without developing the will or resources to re-build what we have torn down, or…especially, if we attack for what seems to be only our own economic and life-style interests. Using force to insure that one has access to other people's belongings is generally knowing as "armed robbery," and it is armed robbery even if those other people are not nice people.

What would I do if I were President Bush? I would utilize the democratic system of world authority known as the United Nations to address the world security issues that may be posed by Iraq. If Iraq has violated a UN resolution, the UN, not the US, must take action. Saddam has agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq; and that avenue needs to be pursued.

If I were Bush, I would recognize sadly that history shows that a democratic government cannot be installed by force but must be the product of the labor and love of the citizens of a nation. There is considerable evidence that suggests that those citizens have to be decently fed and schooled if they are going to be able to undertake that labor. If I were God, I'd have set it up differently. But if I were President Bush, I would accept this fact of life and work with it, not around it. I would end an embargo that has caused uncounted suffering but which has not brought the people of Iraq to revolution, and which may, if Iraq is found to have been somehow or other building super weapons, not have ever worked. After 10 years, it is time to abandon strategies that don't work! And if I were the leader of the world's only remaining superpower and the guy with the most weapons of mass destruction at my hand, I would be doing my utmost to conform to the rule of law, rather than the reflex of war.

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100