Just War Theory

      Following up on last week’s word, today I offer a [somewhat long] primer on so-called “just war theory (jus ad bellum)” in Western thought and theology.  The main strain of determining whether it is justifiable to initiate war goes back in Christianity to St. Augustine (fourth century CE) and Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century CE); an epic tale from India discusses going to war as early as the eighth or ninth century BCE), so the issue has been around for a long time.

      Whether there can be any justification for a war is a good question.  The historic peace churches such as the Mennonites and the more modern peace movements of the 20th century say flat-out, no war, indeed no violence is ever justified.  At the other end of the spectrum are people who feel that talking about whether a war is or is not moral is a silly exercise when confronted by the reality of war on the ground.  Tactics and effectiveness are the focus— not philosophical debate— to practitioners of realpolitik.  The famous photo of the soldier in Viet Nam with “kill them all and let God sort them out” on his helmet is from this perspective. “Just war” proponents are between “pacifists” on one hand and “realists” or “militarists” on the other.

      But most people believe that violence and even war are sometimes necessary, so the discussion is under what circumstance is it morally permissible to initiate war.  Mostly it comes down to self-defense and the protection of non-combatants.  In short, limit the killing and destruction to the minimum required to achieve a good solution and only then when absolutely necessary.  Most US mainline denominations subscribe to just war theory while supporting both their conscientious objectors and their military personnel. It undergirds much military preparation and the charter of peacekeeping organizations and the United Nations.  There are situations when military force is morally warranted, but under constrained conditions.

      The best place to research the doctrine probably comes from Stanford University (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2), but Wikipedia and Google will give you some good references.  The argument for war must be made by those in power who wish to initiate it, whether in government or if placing themselves in opposition to a government, by the leaders of a rebellion.  This is why the American Declaration of Independence was written, to justify civil war and to explain the standing of the colonists to do so.

       I would summarize the elements for a case for going to war (or other use of military force or even police force within a country) this way: at root, war is a large-scale example of justifiable homicide.  It is homicide, but it may be justified.

      The classical categories have been around a long time, although the words change.  Just war must not be initiated for self gain but only as a defense against evil.  The good to come out of beginning hostilities must be greater (I would say far greater) than the evils resulting from it.  Also, the evil done to the nation or the community of nations leading to the declaration must be overwhelming and obvious.  Only legitimate sources can declare war (this ranges from the US Congress now, back to monarchs, back to the priests presiding in ancient Greece and Rome).

      War must be a last resort after all other options are exhausted. All other means of stopping the evil or aggression must have been ineffective or impractical.  The evil possible for not going to war must be grave, certain, and lasting. There must be a clear chance of success to outweigh the evil done in war.  The effects of the weapons must not be worse than the problem, and some weapons are immoral in and of themselves (such as chemical weapons).  The lethality of current weapons should be making this a very stringent consideration now.  The rights and safety of non-combatants are paramount, and in the conduct of war they must be protected and not subject to reprisals, torture, rape, confinement, displacement, or death, even by deprivation or neglect.  Prisoners of war are likewise to be protected once they are no longer engaged in combat.  The conduct of the war by the war-makers must be within moral standards (jus in bello), hence war crimes trials.  More recently have been added categories about after the war, demanding consideration of rebuilding the infrastructure, the political systems, the economy, and such and of the well-being of the populations.  In other words, before you start a war, you have to prepare for after the war, too.

      So the hurdle is set rather high to articulate and get assent for beginning the widespread violence and destruction that is war.  It requires a just and thought-out cause, such are defending oneself or one’s allies or stopping crimes against humanity.  It must protect non-combatants, and it must meet the test of proportionality, that the harm caused by war is less than the good preserved.  And, no matter how noble the ends, some means are not acceptable.

       Those of you playing at home may wish to hold these categories up against such conflicts as the American Revolution, the US Civil War, World War II, Viet Nam, the first and second Iraq wars, the current battles between Hamas and Israel, and the situation in Ukraine.  Remember, not everyone believes that you must make a moral or spiritual case for going to war, just an expedient or political case.  Many wars are started over territory or resources with no pretense of being morally just.

      We are in a weird period of history when the wisdom of the long-standing moral theology and moral philosophy of war is both incredibly important and sadly neglected.  Just war theory provides a context and structure for the debate even now.  Certainly, there can be differences in how different perspectives weigh evidence for and against one factor, and that may tip the balance one way or another.  For example, how many casualties might be inflicted on civilians in an operation might be too high for one person at 1% and acceptable to someone else at 10%.  The advantage of the theory is that you have to stop and assess collateral damage.

      Regardless of the theoretical calculations around the violent conflicts we witness in the world, I believe that the power of prayer and love and hope and the healing, binding, reconciling power of God’s Holy Spirit is ours to share.  So I will continue praying for the world, especially those caught in wars, and extra-especially those undertaking them.  I fear sometimes it is the prayers of the faithful that minimizes the suffering around the globe. I hope you will join us this Sunday in the Spirit of the Prince of Peace.

                                                                                                   In Christ,
                                                                                               
                                                                                                   David

Texts for Sunday
     From the Hebrew Bible            Genesis 29:15-28 
     From the Epistles                   Romans 8:26-39 
     From the Gospels                  Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52