'Just war' must meet certain criteria
Five weeks ago, with the concurrence and assistance of a large number of other nations, the United States initiated military action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist network it harbors. This commitment of U.S. firepower and troops to the "war against terrorism," has raised the question as to whether there are limits on the use of military force. One body of thought on the subject is captured in what is known broadly as the "just war tradition." This moral tradition has been in the making since the fourth century and has as its contributors some of the best minds western culture has known, including Augustine, Gratian, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Paris and many moral thinkers of the 20th century.
What makes war just?
According to the "just war tradition" the use of military force is subject to two sets of tests. The first set of tests centers on whether the use of any force is justified - that is whether war may be declared at all. The second set has to do with the way that the war is prosecuted--that is whether the means employed are just.
The requirements for a just declaration of war are: (1) The war pursues a "just cause," such as self-defense or the protection of the innocent; (2) That it is declared and directed by a "competent authority such as a nation state or alliance of nation states (this requirement limits the number of warring parties in the world); (3) It is declared with the Right Intention such as self-defense (note here that retaliation or revenge is not a right intention, nor is the spread of a religious faith or a way of life); (4) it carries at least a "probability" of success; and (5) it is a "last resort" after peaceful means have failed.
The atrocities of Sept. 11 fail all five of these tests. On those grounds alone the actions taken by terrorist cells against the United States were clearly unjust. On the other hand, the actions taken by the United States and Great Britain against Al Qaeda and the Taliban generally conforms to these norms. The stated goal is the elimination of terrorism against the innocent; the action has the general backing of most nations of the world; the allies are not interested in spreading a religion or way of life; and finally, arguments can successfully be made that these efforts have the probability of success and that this is the only way to make the world safe.
Once war has been declared justly, there are two primary requirements for the way that the war is prosecuted. (1) The use of military force must conform to the notion of proportionality, that is the good to be achieved must outweigh the damage done, taking into account both the short and long term consequences of actions; and (2) the military actions must be discriminatory, recognizing the immunity of non-combatants and not targeting civilians.
Again the atrocities of Sept. 11 fail these tests. It is inconceivable that any good was accomplished by the killing of some 5,000 people that day; nor was there any attempt to discriminate between combatant and non combatant. Even the intentional crash of an airliner into the Pentagon fails this test on the basis of the civilian passengers on board the plane.
However, the fact that an unjust attack has been made against this country does not, on its own, justify retaliation in kind. If the U.S. were to attack civilians in Afghanistan out of a motive of retaliation or revenge, this country would be no better than the terrorists. Under the moral guidance of the Just War Tradition, the Allies may strike in self-defense, but they may not intentionally strike civilian targets, and the harm caused by the strikes must be proportional to the good they will bring about in both the short term and in the long term.
The policy of U.S. military planners not to target the general populations and to keep civilian causalities to a minimum is in general accord with the just war tradition. The one area in which the allies may run afoul of the just war tradition is that of proportionality: whether the good to be accomplished is commensurate with the harm being inflicted. This is a judgment that will in part be made in hindsight, once it is seen what was accomplished and in what condition Afghanistan is left after the war. In recent days, we have begun to see the northern alliance army become a kind of surrogate force advancing U.S. policies. Here again, as the army of the Northern Alliance takes city after city, there is need for restraint. The death of tens of thousands of bystanders who were killed the last time various tribes invaded Kabul was a tragedy that ought not be repeated.
Violence is often a poor way to accomplish the ultimate goals of justice and peace. War is always a risky business, as the U.S. has learned from recent forays into Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo and Serbia. When using military force, good intentions alone do not make for clean and neat outcomes. War often leaves behind a mess that leads to new conflict. If the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is to be counted moral, humanitarian relief efforts must be as successful as military efforts. So too the condition of the Afghan people at the end of this conflict must be at least as good as it was when the conflict began and hopefully much improved.
The Reverend Michael Nash is pastor of the Catholic Cathedral of the Nativity in downtown Juneau.