Arguably, A Just War

[KnightofChrist]

[b]Arguably, a Just War[/b]
by Fr. John G. Yockey

My personal thanks to Bishop Richard J. Sklba for inspiring us all with his eloquent article, "The sorrow of a war-torn world," Catholic Herald (August 11, 2005), p. 3, reprinted in our bulletin last weekend. At the same time, I respectfully disagree with his closing criticism of the Iraq War.

It is both true and commendable, as the bishop noted: "...the highest levels of our universal Catholic Church concluded that the decision of the United States to go to war in Iraq was morally indefensible." The prophetic voice of our late Holy Father on this issue will always give me serious reason to pause. His constant, categorical insistence that every war is a defeat for humanity came from the indelible pain of his first-hand encounter with atrocity, even more fundamentally than from his mystical prayer or theological conclusions. Nonetheless, his specific application of such core Gospel value to the complex crisis in Iraq under Saddam is a matter of pastoral opinion (however well informed), not of doctrine.

Catholic doctrine, while emphasizing the primary imperative of non-violent conflict resolution, still concedes that a war can be justified when certain principles are followed (cf. Catechism nos. 2308-09). Often the painful limitations of our human condition most tragically fall far short of the evangelical ideal. The finite nature of creation, the devastating consequences of sin, and our unfinished world groaning for full transformation in Christ make conflict unavoidable at times so long as the weeds in Jesus’ parable continue to grow with the wheat.

In his own column August 4 ("Herald of Hope," Catholic Herald), Archbishop Dolan nuanced the present state of things this side of heaven very accurately: "...patience, dialogue and reconciliation usually accomplish far more than sticks and stones." Usually, but not always. Most regrettably, there seem to be times when the horror of war is the best that can be done practically to counter pernicious evil. I submit that Operation Iraqi Freedom, striving to follow Just War principles under very treacherous circumstances, has been a terrible but necessary exception to the normative Gospel ethic of non-violence.

While I write, Mrs. Cindy Sheehan remains camped outside the President’s Texas ranch. She hopes to meet again with the Commander in Chief to tell him that "...he recklessly endangered the life of my son by sending our troops to attack and occupy a country that was no imminent threat to the United States." My prayers and empathy go out to Mrs. Sheehan, but I find her reasoning (apparently now shared by polled majorities) a lapse of memory and factually wrong.

Saddam Hussein brutally unleashed weapons of mass destruction during the late 1980s. Tens of thousands of graves attest to his barbarism. After the Persian Gulf War (1991), he refused to comply with more than a dozen UN resolutions, requiring him to provide the Security Council documented, corroborated reports about his remaining stockpiles and their mandated destruction.

For more than a decade he kept the international community at bay – in perilous doubt, constant uncertainty about his capabilities and schemes. He rebuffed repeated, often public efforts to verify that his regime posed no threat of nuclear terrorism. By March, 2003, the stronger consensus in global (not just American) intelligence presumed the existence of wmd in Iraq.

Everyone remembers the first point from the congressional testimony of chief weapons inspector David Kay shortly after the war began. No wmd were discovered in Iraq.

[i]*Correction added by KoC*
Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin
*Correction added by KoC*[/i]


But hardly anyone recalls his second crucial point at that very same hearing.

According to Kay, the Coalition rightly invaded Iraq nonetheless because the overall situation there after 1998 was much more unstable, much more chaotic and menacing than international intelligence had even supposed. The looming threat posed by a tyrannical regime out of internal control posed a danger only too real and increasingly ominous for the entire Middle Eastern region as well as for the rest of the world.

In my view, the wrenching decision to wage Operation Iraqi Freedom was strategically pre-emptive but morally defensive, not aggressive. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and other Coalition leaders correctly chose the safer course to counter such intolerable, grave uncertainty about a potential catastrophe which, left unchecked minus outside intervention, could have escalated to the disaster of another Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

While the overthrow of Saddam and his terrorist ambitions was accomplished with reasonable success, the occupation and concomitant rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure obviously have proven much more arduous. It does seem that the original plan for war did not at all anticipate the ferocious resistance which has frustrated progress toward achieving an indigenous democracy. But I share the confidence of our generals on the front line (lauded for their competence by political leaders across the spectrum) that so lofty a goal is still attainable if we firmly persevere in our current strategy.

In the conduct of any war, abuses and atrocities inevitably occur that can never be justified. The brutality of the Iraqi conflict includes many instances of egregious immorality. No one can deny this repugnant down side. At the same time, I do believe the good does outweigh the bad in this dreadful quagmire.

We rightly coil when we hear civilian casualties referred to so impersonally as "collateral damage." Yet, I think the sophisticated weaponry used by our military forces deliberately seeks to target combatants and their hideouts with greater technical precision than ever before possible. Often we hear about and see our troops taking definite steps to minimize, if not totally shield, the innocent from injury and death.

Bishop Sklba commented that the Pentagon’s omission of Iraqi casualties "suggests to many...that we cannot bear facing the full impact of the human damage being caused." Caused by whom? My own impression is that insurgent attackers wantonly, indiscriminately maim and kill far many more Iraqi civilians than do Coalition soldiers.

Furthermore, the daily outreach of our military in meaningful, direct services to the local people, plus our persistence in providing enormous economic and political aid to rebuild the very country where we tragically had to wage war, shows that we responsibly make good faith efforts to contain the devastation as much as is humanly possible.

Arguably, then, the Iraq War is just. It meets the classic moral standards for planning war (jus ad bellum). It began as a last resort after more than a decade of failed diplomacy to guarantee the abolition of wmd in Saddam’s arsenal. It pursued a just cause, defensively taking the safer course against the devious deceit of a known perpetrator of mass destruction. It was declared by legitimate authority with no proven immoral intent. It proceeded with a reasonable hope for success, however difficult the regime change sought may ultimately be.

Similarly, the Iraq War meets the classic moral requirements for conduct during war (jus in bello). Maximum care has been taken to avoid direct attack on innocent non-combatants. And, though it is too early to determine conclusively, you can hold an opinion as probable as any opposite that the good of Saddam’s removal from the black market of nuclear terrorism proportionately outweighs the evil required to effect those structural changes conducive for human betterment and greater stability throughout the Middle East.

Arguably, the Iraq War is just, but Pope John Paul is vindicated. War is always a defeat for humanity, always. We trust that when we suffer such catastrophe in the cosmic battle between grace and sin, we become even more radically dependent upon divine mercy to save us.

Edited January 5, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

The good father fails to address a key issue in his essay. The fact that a first strike doctrine has been viewed by the Vatican as antithetical to the doctrine of a just war. With that in mind, no one can argue that the war in Iraq meets the criteria.

[Anything4Him]

As I stated in an earlier post -- JPII decried the war [i]in front[/i] of President Bush...

I stand by JPII before George Bush and Congress anyday of the week...

There is also a mixed message on the war in my opinion. I know amd totally agree with the fact that we went into Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we did that part and now it's almost snow-balled into an Iraqi civil war. Iraqis are killing more Iraqis than American soldiers.

After we look at the numbers associated with the deaths of American soldiers, we should then look at the #s of dead Iraqis who were killed by [i]Americans.[/i]

Peace of Christ,
TUCKER M

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1156801' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:01 PM']
The good father fails to address a key issue in his essay. The fact that a first strike doctrine has been viewed by the Vatican as antithetical to the doctrine of a just war. With that in mind, no one can argue that the war in Iraq meets the criteria.
[/quote]

Preemptive strike does not equal an unjust war, there has been wars in times pasts which were preemptive and if fact some from what we read from The Holy Bible were commanded by God Himself. "First Strike" or a Preemptive strike does not automatically equal an unjust war.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp"]SOURCE[/url]

[b]LASTING, GRAVE, AND CERTAIN DAMAGE[/b]
[quote]
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.[/quote]

The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war simply to expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory, subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter aggression.

In recent wars, the aggressor often has been a nation-state, such as Germany was in the First and Second World Wars. But nation-states are relatively new in world history. Throughout much of history the aggressors were much smaller and more loosely organized. Even today many small wars are fought between tribes. In recent years they have been fought between national armies and drug cartels. And in the war on terrorism a principal aggressor has been the terrorist organization al Qaeda.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be "lasting, grave, and certain", An aggression that is temporary and mild would not meet this condition. It must be foreseen to have effects that are both lasting and grave.

It also must be foreseen with moral certainty, moral certainty being the highest kind of assurance that is possible in geo-political matters. If this is present -- and if the other conditions are met -- then it is lawful to resort to war.

[b]This means that it is not necessary for the aggressor to strike first.[/b] A moral certainty that the aggression will occur is sufficient. Such certainty might be present, for instance, if a party with a history of aggression began amassing troops or munitions.

In a world where it is possible for an aggressor to strike at a distance, with little or no warning, and to cause mass casualties, it is important to identify a potential aggressor early and determine whether he poses a morally certain danger.

[b]JUSTICE IN WAR[/b]

Once the decision to go to war has been reached, a new set of issues is placed in focus. These have to do with how the war is conducted. Thus the Catechism states:

[quote]The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties (CCC 2312).[/quote]

A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat. Frequently in the history of warfare, soldiers have maimed, raped, and even killed those who did not pose a physical threat to them. Sometimes this has escalated into genocide. The Catechism is at pains to stress the moral illegitimacy of all of these:

[quote]Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide (CCC 2313).[/quote]

Unlike many countries, America has a strong commitment to this principle. The U.S. is famous for its humane treatment of non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war. Indeed, America is renowned for turning former wartime enemies -- such as Germany, Japan, and Italy -- into friends.

The treatment of non-hostile individuals in wartime is not the only consideration involved in the just prosecution of a war. The existence of weapons of mass destruction poses special moral challenges. In this regard the Catechism states:

[quote]Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).[/quote]

The U.S. has not always been committed to this principle. In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II the United States violated it. Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations. They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God's law, according to which, "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).

It is important to recognize what this principle does and does not require. While it does require strenuous efforts to avoid harming innocents, it does not require the result of no innocents being harmed. Such a result is impossible to guarantee. Even with the smartest of smart munitions, it is not possible to ensure that no non-combatants will be harmed in wartime. As tragic as it is, collateral damage to innocents is an inescapable consequence of war. Catholic theology recognizes this. It applies to such situations a well-established principle known as the law of double-effect. According to this law it is permissible to undertake an action which has two effects, one good and one evil, provided that certain conditions are met.

Although these conditions can be formulated in different ways, they may be enumerated as follows: (1) the action itself must not be intrinsically evil; (2) the evil effect must not be an end in itself or a means to accomplishing the good effect (in other words, it must be a foreseen but undesired side-effect of the action); and (3) the evil effect must not outweigh the good effect. If these three conditions are met, the action may be taken in spite of the foreseen damage it will do.

The law of double-effect would not have applied to the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil and though it is arguable that in the long run more lives were saved than lost, the second condition was violated because the death of innocents was used as a means to achieve the good of the war's end.

[b]Fortunately, despite these past, grave transgressions, the United States is now committed to the principle of sparing innocent life during military actions. It has repeatedly and sincerely expressed its intent to minimize civilian casualties and to serve as a liberator of captive populations in the War on Terrorism. The U.S. is now committed to the principles of the just war.[/b]

[Jaime]

[quote]The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.

"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities." [/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.

"[b]One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude [u]the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances[/u][/b]; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."[/quote]

The return to conflict in the Iraq war was a Preemptive action [u]not[/u] a "preventive war", which are two different things. A preventive war would have prevented war. A preemptive war would have preempted an attack by Saddam Hussein, which by the way He did command his army to fire on the American AirForce before the return to conflict on our part. Not to mention the attempted assassination of Pres. George H.W. Bush.

Again a preventive war would cancel out a war. But a Preemptive would would mean act first in the war.

That being said The Americans have justly fought for the values and peoples, of Iraq, that must be defended. Some by giving the very lives.

Edited January 6, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1157179' date='Jan 5 2007, 11:28 PM']
The return to conflict in the Iraq war was a Preemptive action [u]not[/u] a "preventive war", which are two different things. A preventive war would have prevented war. A preemptive war would have preempted an attack by Saddam Hussein, which by the way He did command his army to fire on the American AirForce before the return to conflict on our part. Not to mention the attempted assassination of Pres. George H.W. Bush.

Again a preventive war would cancel out a war. But a Preemptive would would mean act first in the war.

That being said The Americans have justly fought for the values and peoples, of Iraq, that must be defended. Some by giving the very lives.
[/quote]


Holy cow the spin cycle is on full blast.


What war do you think then Cardinal Ratzinger was talking about?

[quote] The Vatican renewed its opposition to war in Iraq on Wednesday, saying military action would only make matters worse and that a pre-emptive strike raised serious ethical and legal problems.

"It's unilateralism, pure and simple," the Vatican's UN observer, Archbishop Renato Martino, said in comments published in the Italian newsweekly Famiglia Christiana.

The principle of a "first strike" as well as its possible use in Iraq "provoke profound reservations be it from the ethical or legal point of view," he said.
[/quote]

[quote][b]President Bush rejects the Vatican's argument that pre-emptive war with Iraq has no moral justification,[/b] but officials promise that he will listen carefully when he meets Pope John Paul II's envoy Wednesday. [/quote]

nuff said

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1157213' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:16 AM']
Holy cow the spin cycle is on full blast.
What war do you think then Cardinal Ratzinger was talking about?
nuff said
[/quote]

Then let me ask you this, just preventive and preemptive war being questioned. The preventive and preemptive wars by the Israelites which are recorded in the old testament, were they obeying God?

[Jaime]

We aren't arguing Old Testament and as I recall, New Testament kinda changed a lot of things from OT.


Let me ask you this

When the Vatican has clearly and definitively stated that the actions of the US were wrong,

should that be simply dismissed?



Its not me your disagreeing with. Its the Vatican

[KnightofChrist]

You didnt answer my question why should I answer yours

[Jaime]

I did answer your question.

OT does not apply to this current situation.


However the stance of the Vatican has direct relevance.

Why would a Catholic, who is to assent his will to the Church, dissent in a matter that the Vatican has spoken about?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1157254']
I did answer your question.[/quote]

Not true. You avoid it.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1157254' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:59 AM']OT does not apply to this current situation.[/quote]

It does apply if preventive and preemptive wars are by there very nature "unjust" then the preventive and preemptive wars which God command the Israelites to engage are also unjust!

Truth is not relative, the God of the OT is the same God of the new. If preventive and preemptive wars are wrong now and unjust they were wrong then, and God was unjust.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1157254' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:59 AM']However the stance of the Vatican has direct relevance.

Why would a Catholic, who is to assent his will to the Church, dissent in a matter that the Vatican has spoken about?
[/quote]

I am not loyal to the dogmatic and infallibly teachings of Holy Mother Church because I show how the Iraq war could be just? Truth is absolute, not relative, if preventive and preemptive wars are wrong now they have always been wrong. When Holy Mother Church teaches She can not teach contradictions.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1157265' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:26 AM']
Not true. You avoid it.
It does apply if preventive and preemptive wars are by there very nature "unjust" then the preventive and preemptive wars which God command the Israelites to engage are also unjust!

Truth is not relative, the God of the OT is the same God of the new. If preventive and preemptive wars are wrong now and unjust they were wrong then, and God was unjust.
I am not loyal to the dogmatic and infallibly teachings of Holy Mother Church because I show how the Iraq war could be just? Truth is absolute, not relative, if preventive and preemptive wars are wrong now they have always been wrong. When Holy Mother Church teaches She can not teach contradictions.
[/quote]

Old Testament taught that it was just to have adulterous women stoned to death. Was Jesus wrong to stop that woman from being killed?

Again you are arguing against the Vatican, not just me. The burden of proof then lies on you, not me.

[Socrates]

In the nuclear age, with weapons of mass destruction, this brings in some new factors. Are we to wait until a WMD has already been detonated to take action?
("Oops, there goes half our population! Guess he wasn't fooling around - let's invade!")

And Saddam had hardly been a non-aggressor - he had already committed genocide and other attrocities, and was acting in a clearly threatening manner towards the U.S.

[Jaime]

Hey Soc if you choose to dissent from the Vatican, the current pope and the former pope, that's your decision.

But it doesn't make the war just