TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/021191/0211999.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6.7 KB | 153 lines

                                                                                THE GULF WAR, Page 42

THE MORAL DEBATE

A Just Conflict, or Just a Conflict?


George Bush invokes a long-standing Christian doctrine to defend
his military action against Saddam

By RICHARD N. OSTLING -- With reporting by Robert Ajemian/Boston
and Cathy Booth/Miami


    "We know that this is a just war, and we know that, God
willing, this is a war we will win."


    George Bush prefers action to abstraction, but last week he
delivered a fervent argument to bolster support for the war
with Iraq. In a speech before a Washington audience of radio
and TV Protestant evangelists, he invoked a long-standing
Christian doctrine in the battle against Saddam Hussein, that
of the "just war."

    Bush's words were a direct response to the unusually
widespread criticism of the war in American religious circles.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy has questioned whether the
U.S.-led military action meets the traditional just-war
criteria. The war has been branded "morally indefensible" by
officials of Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant groups
affiliated with the National Council of Churches, including
Edmond Browning, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church,
Bush's denomination.

    Christianity, with its emphasis on universal love, has
always had a struggle with the idea of war. Most early
believers refused to bear arms. After the rulers of the Roman
Empire embraced Christianity in the 4th century, St. Augustine
first elaborated the limited argument in favor of military
action. Wrote the North African bishop and theologian: "War
should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God
may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in
peace."

    The just-war doctrine was refined in another era when
Christians waged war against Muslims, the time of the Crusades.
In the 13th century, 70 years after the First Crusade was
launched to recapture the Holy Land, St. Thomas Aquinas listed
three elements of a just war: combat must be waged by competent
government authority, the cause must be just, and there must
be a "right intention" to promote good. Later Catholic thinkers
added the notions that war should be a "last resort," that it
should have a probability of success, that anticipated good
results must outweigh the suffering that it would cause and
that war should be "discriminate" to protect noncombatants.

    Protestant and Jewish thinkers developed similar theories.
To Martin Luther, the power of temporal rulers was to be
"turned only against the wicked, to hold them in check and keep
them at peace, and to protect and save the righteous." In
practice, however, most clergy in wartime preached the
righteousness of their own nations' cause. Only after the fact
did scholars contemplate the moral wisdom of various wars, as
occurred in America following the Spanish-American War and
World War I. Even World War II, despite the evils of Nazism,
was deemed "just" only after the U.S. became involved.

    America's concept of itself as a moral warrior suffered its
most decisive setback in Vietnam. Though many clergy initially
supported the American intervention, debate over the "justness"
of U.S. involvement developed alongside secular opposition to
the war. By 1971 the Catholic hierarchy declared, "Whatever
good we hope to achieve through continued involvement in this
war is now outweighed by the destruction of human life and of
moral values which it inflicts."

    Bush's clerical critics find little to dispute in many of
the just-war criteria. Questions about whether "competent
authority" endorsed the gulf campaign died out once Congress
had voted its support. The moral opposition revolves around two
classical yardsticks. "We believe that [the use of] offensive
force in this situation would likely violate the principles of
last resort and proportionality," stated the President of the
U.S. Catholic hierarchy, Cincinnati's Archbishop Daniel
Pilarczyk, as the Jan. 15 deadline for Iraq's withdrawal passed.

    The question of "last resort" focuses on alternatives to
force, notably economic sanctions. The newly retired Archbishop
of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, hoped that economic sanctions
would be tried for months more, even up to a year, before any
resort to force. An even more difficult criterion to assess is
"proportionality," the weighing of the good and evil results.
The antiwar protest from leaders of the National Council of
Churches included forecasts of hundreds of thousands of
casualties and damage lasting "for generations to come."

    The proportionality issue has also sparked concern at the
Vatican. La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit fortnightly in Rome
that usually reflects Vatican thinking, has declared that the
extent of damage wrought by both conventional and nuclear
weaponry all but ends the prospect that any war could be deemed
just. The Vatican's doctrinal overseer, Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, took the same viewpoint in a radio interview after
the bombing of Iraq began, but Pope John Paul II has not gone
that far.

    Not all religious thinkers are skeptical. Boston's Bernard
Cardinal Law, for one, sees a "regrettable" choice: "either to
let [Saddam] continue to wreak his havoc unchecked or to defend
the cause of justice with arms." Protestant evangelist Billy
Graham agrees: "Sometimes it becomes necessary to fight the
strong in order to protect the weak." Jewish groups cite the
manifest threat that Iraq poses to Israel as well as to Arab
lands.

    President Bush took up almost all those issues in his speech
last week. On "last resort," the President contended that
"extraordinary diplomatic efforts" had preceded hostilities.
On discrimination and proportionality, Bush insisted that "we
are doing everything possible, believe me, to avoid hurting the
innocent," an assertion buttressed in numerous military
briefings. Addressing the "probability" test, Bush has said
repeatedly that the troops have the means to win.

    In conducting his point-by-point argument, Bush may not have
satisfied many of his religious critics. But for the moment at
least he gave them something to ponder, and on their own terms.


____________________________________________________________
WHAT MAKES WAR JUST


    -- It pursues a "just cause," such as self-defense or the


    -- It is declared and directed by a "competent authority."

    -- It is a "last resort" after peaceful means have failed.

    -- It carries at least a "probability" of success.

    -- It conforms to "proportionality" -- the good to be
    achieved will outweigh the damage done.

    -- It is "discriminate," avoiding harm to noncombatants
     where possible.