It's Not Just Another War

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it," said the famous American general, Robert E. Lee during the American Civil War. The United States has found herself in war once again, and the nation is torn on whether or not to support President George W. Bush in his unilateral attack on Iraq. The country is full of veterans of the Vietnam Conflict and the Gulf War and those that remember World War II. Many have a bitter taste in their mouth from Vietnam and do not want America involved in missions such as the one she is currently engaged in. Non-military citizens and the younger generations find themselves unsure how to feel; only knowing stories of past wars does not help one formulate an opinion easier. One popular way to determine if a war is worthy of support is to use the historical "Just War Theory" developed by philosophers and theologians. The British Broadcasting Corporation defines Just War Theory as "a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussion of possible wars." While its purpose is not to help justify wars (it is more aimed for preventing unnecessary wars from occurring) it can be used to help establish need for support or cause for the withdrawal of support. If American citizens used the just war theory to analyze the Iraq War, most would conclude that the war is unjust and calls for the removal of individual support for further operations and missions.

Before one can use just war theory, one must understand its origins. The history of the just war theory dates back to classical Roman and Greek philosophers Plato and Cicero and later Christian theologians Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas ("The Doctrine of the Just War"). The great Classic thinkers began to argue that there were no just causes for war except self-defense and the desire to keep or bring peace to another warring nation. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed that peace was the only justifiable reason for war ("The Doctrine of the Just War"). Dutch Philosopher Huge Grotius(1583-1645) wrote a book titled De Jure Belli Ac Pacis, translated as The Rights of War and Peace, that listed the conditions for a just war which serve as the basis for the ones we list today. Chrisitans have long adopted Just War Theory, but it wasn't until 1842 that the theory was legitimatized in America by Daniel Webster, the United States' Secretary of State.

The newest and most accepted version of the just war theory lists six conditions. Each of the six criterions must be satisfied for the war to be considered just. These six conditions for just war are

1. The war must be for a just cause.

2. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.

3. The intention behind the war must be good.

4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first

5. There must be a reasonable chance of success.

6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

There are also two elements of just war, those being jus ad bellum and jus in bello with jus ad bellum meaning "the conditions under which the use of military force is justified" and jus in bello meaning "how to conduct a war in an ethical manner. To put simply, war is only just it is "both justified and carried out in the right way" ("The Doctrine of the Just War"). One should not only carefully analyze each criterion in relation to America's War on Iraq, but also the condition as many are subject to interpretation.

The war must be for a just cause. The just cause is the reason for war, and it must be justified and have honorable intentions. At the US Catholic Conference in 1993 just war theory was discussed and a conclusion was made that "force may be used only to correct grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations" ("The Doctrine of the Just War"). The most common and recognized just cause is self-defense as in when the United States joined the Second World War after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Just causes can also include righting a wrong or often preventing a wrong from happening; defending human rights or innocent people is another "just" cause that has emerged in modern times with the Vietnam Conflict and much like one reason given for Bush's War on Terrorism in Iraq. Attacks on allies or neighboring countries can serve as justification for war. A pre-emptive strike, like the one made by the United States on Iraq, is rarely seen as just.

Another problem with Bush's pre-emptive strike is in direct relation to the second condition for just war. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. While Bush, as our President and Commander-in-Chief of our troops, has the right to wage war, he did not implement it in the politically correct way. As a member of the United Nations, there are certain protocols for asking for assistance in waging war. While the UN does not wage war, for it is against its charter, it does give "lawful authorization" by way of resolutions. Resolution 1441 was passed in regard to Iraq in November of 2002. Dworkin of the Crimes of War Project interviewed Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at Oxford University, who summed up the parts of Resolution 1441:

* Iraq "has been and remains in material breach" of its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions.

* The Security Council decides to afford Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

* The Security Council will convene immediately upon receipt of a report making clear that Iraq is still not complying with its obligations, "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

* The Security Council recalls that it "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

* The Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter."

Also in Lowe's statement to Crimes of War, he emphasized that the resolution still gave no one permission, except the UN Security Council (Dworkin). Some argue that the UN is not the supreme lawful authority of this world, but as a member, the United States needs to respect the policies upheld. This country sought support at the UN Council meetings, but

...