Just War Theory

There is a theory known as "Just War Theory" that outlines the requirements that must be met for a war to be considered just. Of course, the basic points are always in question (because all moral values are always in question), but these are the generally accepted principles:

1. The war must have a cause that is just.

2. It must be a last resort. All other avenues of correcting the problem must have been exhausted.

3. The one prosecuting the war must have the proper authority to do so.

4. The evil caused by the war must be less than the evil that is removed by it.

5. There must be a reasonable probability of success.

Assuming that this theory is correct (It has been accepted as valid since the Middle Ages.), the question becomes, "Do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fall in the 'Just War' category?"

All five principles are in question, of course, more so in Iraq than in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it was clear that the perpetrator of the attack of Sep. 11 was in the country, protected by the government there. (That would constitute "just cause".) The negotiations to surrender him failed and the country remained defiant. (That would constitute "last resort".) Since we were the attacked and they were the attackers, it seemed that we should have the authority to respond with military force. (That would constitute "proper authority".) It appears that the removing of the Taliban and replacing it with a duly elected government with a minimum of collateral damage would satisfy the fourth principle. From all appearances, that war has been a success. Despite all of what appears to be the case, however, some still argue that our attack of Afghanistan was not just, and that we didn't have the proper authority to do it. You can decide. It seems to me of little debate whether the war with Afghanistan meets these criteria.

The war with Iraq isn't as clear. The President launched a preemptive strike, always a question with "just cause". The U.N. has argued all along that negotiations were ongoing and that they hadn't exhausted all other possibilities. The apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction (I say "apparent" because it is not strictly true that no such weapons were found despite the repeated claim of the media that this is the case.) and the international nature of the venture (That is, was America herself threatened?) would suggest that we didn't have the proper authority to go there. There seems to be no end to the bickering over whether we caused more evil than we stopped. And, truth be told, no one, to this day, has any clue if there is a reasonable probability for success. It seems that all five points are in question.

There aren't too many voices currently addressing the possibility that this might have been a Just War. I'd like to offer a few ideas on it just for your consideration. Maybe, just maybe, there is reason to think otherwise about this war in Iraq. Let's set aside emotion for a few minutes (none of us like the fact that Americans are dying over there) and try to see if there isn't the possibility that this is a just war.

Is there just cause? In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S., as part of a coalition, stepped in and forced Hussein to withdraw. Part of the agreement in the subsequent ceasefire was that Iraq would disarm and open up to inspections. For more than a decade Iraq fought against that to which they had agreed. They repeatedly blocked inspectors. They repeatedly ejected them from the country. The U.N. tried everything. They tried sanctions, negotiations, threats, all to no avail. Instead, Hussein continued to claim he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and would use them as he saw fit. In 1998, President Clinton stated that Iraq's efforts to dominate the Middle East was a threat to America's allies and vital interests. John McCain considered Saddam Hussein "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." Senator Lieberman was quoted as saying, "Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world." This wasn't a "neo-con" perspective or some "hawk" viewpoint. It was the common perspective of the government of the United States. After 9/11, it was shared by nearly all in the government. Even those who are currently raising their voices loudest to bring home the troops were shouting with equal volume the dangers of leaving Saddam in power. Was it a just cause? From all that we knew at the time that we started the attack, it would seem to be that we were acting out of self-defense and the defense of our allies. That is just cause, even if the information is faulty.

What led to this attack? The war against Iraq was preceded by more than a decade of conflict with Iraq. We tried sanctions, threats, negotiations. We tried various avenues including the U.N., other nations, and direct discussions. We simply required that Iraq abide by the agreements they made when they surrendered in the Desert Storm conflict. They refused repeatedly. And beyond merely refusing, Saddam shook his fist at us and threatened to use his weapons of mass destruction. Finally, when radical anti-Americans carried out an attack on Americans in New York City and Washington D.C., the government and people of Iraq cheered. They may not have had direct ties to the attack, but they certainly supported it and offered safe haven to those who would attack us. It could be argued that this war was a last resort.

Did President Bush have the authority to go to war with Iraq? That question might be a little more tricky. It is difficult to draw a direct line of threat from Iraq to America. And a preemptive strike will always raise a haze to the question. Ultimately we don't really know the danger Iraq may have posed to us. However, the perception at the time was that Saddam posed "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." John Kerry said, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." Indeed, this is the consensus at the time:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

(Source)

The perspective was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the will to harm America. If that was the case, then it would seem that it was within the legal and moral rights of the government of the country to act to defend its people. Arguments can be made that the information was faulty. People can point out that the intelligence has since proven to be false. That's a different issue. The questions of "just cause" and "proper authority" can only be based on what they believed at the time. That the information was faulty can only be factored in if it is argued that it was knowingly faulty, and that has not been the case. It is reasonable to argue that the U.S. government (not merely President Bush) believed that there was an imminent threat from Iraq and to act to defend against that threat is acting on proper authority.

The last two will likely be subjects of debate for a long time to come. How much evil did the war cause? How much did it end? Would Iraq and the world be better off today if Hussein was still in power? That's the real question here. And is there a reasonable probability of success? That is the other real question here. Now, to be fair, one should ask if they had a reasonable probability of success when they started rather than if there continues to be a reasonable probability of success. Was there good rationale for the government to believe they could succeed in 1) removing the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and 2) putting a democratic government in place in Iraq? In hindsight one has to wonder, but how many voices were there prior to the war that warned that it wasn't reasonable? I don't know the answer to that. I do think that it is possible to argue that they believed that the damage they caused would be less than the damage they corrected, and that there was a reasonable probability of success. If that is the case then this could be classified as a "just war".

It's not a "done deal". Depending on your preconceptions, prejudices, and a priori conditions (and don't fool yourself ... everyone has them), the argument will continue. I don't anticipate that I've solved the problem and provided proof to everyone's satisfaction. That wasn't my goal. Perhaps ... just maybe ... someone reading this might say, "Well, I suppose it could be argued that this was a just war." Perhaps. And a different perspective than the screaming anti-war of the airwaves isn't necessarily a bad thing. (For more on this possibility, read Robert George on the question.)