Liberals are always willing to inform the public that the war in Iraq is unjust. Bush, they say, is conducting a unilateral war of aggression for the benefit of oil companies against a sovereign nation. Some have even called for Bush to be tried before the International Criminal court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Liberal and socialist romanticism has no grounding in facts or reality. The same is true for their comprehension of the Theory of Just War. The moment the United States declares war on some despotic tyrant, liberals and socialists can be counted on to inform the public that the United States has violated the conditions of Just War.
As far as liberals are concerned no war is ever just, not even a defensive one if it is conducted by the United States. Such opinions have nothing to do with the Theory of Just War but have everything to do with pacifism, appeasement and downright anti-American bigotry. The formulators of the Theory of Just war reject the pacifists’ and appeasers’ viewpoint as unreasonable, theologically unacceptable and incompatible with Christian values.
The Theory of Just War was originally conceived by Thomas Aquinas. It was also Aquinas who established reason as the essential cornerstone of the Western Civilization. Accordingly, many philosophers credit him being a founding father of our civilization. Later Thomist philosophers Francisco Suarez and Francis de Vitoria of the Spanish School founded International Law based on Aquinas’ political writings and the applications of Thomist philosophical principles and natural law. The Spanish School also has the distinction of conceiving free market economics.
Reason has no place in the liberal lexicon. Liberals often confuse their own subjective feelings and opinions for reason. It is quite hard to make a rational justification when reason is your enemy. This is the reason why liberal intellectuals manipulate and misrepresent the conditions for just war to suit their purposes.
Aquinas agreed with St. Augustine that any unprovoked defensive war was morally justified. However, Aquinas expands the moral justification to include offensive wars as long as three conditions are met: proper authority, just cause and intention. To fully develop international law Suarez and de Vitoria added more conditions for waging a just war. Offensive war should be fought as a last resort, proportionally and if prospects for success are reasonable.
First, war has to be declared by a proper authority entrusted with the public good. No private organization or individual may take up arms or declare war against another nation.
A nation may go to war against another nation which directly destabilizes the nation, to overthrow obnoxious tyrannies, put down unjustified insurgencies and bring order in anarchies. However, no nation can intervene in the intranational affairs of a nation which have working legislatures, courts or tribunals unless intervention is implored.
The last condition Aquinas imposes is that war be waged to force compliance with policies necessary for peaceful coexistence. A war cannot be fought for personal aggrandizement, imposing a tyranny or as an excuse for its selfish gain.
War should be only fought as a last resort when all reasonable diplomatic efforts are expended. No nation needs to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent wars or accept unreasonable conditions for peace.
Nations waging war may use no more force than necessary to counter aggression. Just as in Aquinas cautions individuals from using more force than necessary in self-defense, de Vitoria and Suarez cautions nations to do the same. They were concerned with the amount of force used by a party to a conflict rather than a numerical superiority of a side in combat.
Nations must avoid wars and needless bloodshed unless there is a reasonable chance of success. Because outcome of war can never be guaranteed, fighting a war with overly optimistic expectation of success does not make a war unjust.
Suarez and de Vitoria further discuss violence done to religion, against people and against property.
Churches cannot be attacked unless when a military necessity. Churches occupied by the military may be attacked. A church may unintentionally come under attack because of its proximity to a military target.
They divide people into four categories: direct combatants, indirect combatants, non-combatants and neutrals. The indirect killing of non-combatants and neutrals is permissible according to Aquinas’ principle of double effect. Killing of neutrals and non-combatants is always murder unless it is unintentional and unavoidable.
In keeping with the Scholastics of the Spanish School Suarez and de Vitoria concerned themselves with property rights during war. Military property of an unjust aggressor may be confiscated or destroyed. Public non-military and private property and goods must be respected and proper restitution should be made if expropriated. This said the principle of double effect still applies to unintentionally destroyed property.
Liberals do not care about protecting religious institutions particularly if is Christian. Nor do they care about the individual unless they can categorize him as some sort of victim. Nor do they concern themselves with property rights as all property to them should be public.
As Commander in Chief of the United States, President George Bush has been constitutionally vested with the power to declare war. When he declared war on Iraq, he essentially declared war on a despotic tyrant who brutalized his own people. While Saddam Hussein held power, no legislature, court or tribunal could rectify the situation to any degree. The war against the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq continues to justify American presence in the region. Iraq without doubt will plunge into civil war and anarchy without the continued U.S. presence. From the evidence, there is also little doubt that George Bush sought to oust the tyrant and bring justice and stability to Iraq.
Ten years of exhaustive negotiations with Saddam Hussein produced no diplomatic solution. With no diplomatic solution on the horizon it was time to use the military option to cure the ills in Iraq. By all accounts the force used to overthrow Saddam was proportional. As with any engagement there are various groups or individuals who would be pessimistic as to the outcome of a conflict. Most analysts believed that the U.S. would be successful in Iraq. As this is an ongoing conflict it is yet too early to predict an outcome Iraq. Success in Iraq will ultimately depend on the Iraqis’ ability to create a stable country which would recognize basic human rights.
Evaluating the evidence it will be soon apparent that the U.S. and its allies in Iraq are engaged in a just war. They have the morally right intentions, means and ends.
To the annoyance of liberals, our western civilization cannot divest itself from our Christian heritage. Throughout western history they have been one and the same. Many ideas rooted in Christianity have been secularized and appropriated by public officials. It is worth remembering that the Dominican friar, Aquinas, is a canonized saint while the Jesuit priests Suarez and de Vitoria have been beatified and are only a step away from official sainthood.
Anti-war liberals and socialists attempt to manipulate and misrepresent the theory of and conduct of Just War. They attempt to make it out to be a silver bullet against the Bush doctrine. Unfortunately for them America’s war in Afghanistan and Iraq are wholly compatible with the Theory of Just War.
- The Christian Influence in Western Society - Thursday December 14, 2006 at 6:55 pm
- Revising History for the Opinionated Fool - Saturday August 5, 2006 at 12:52 pm
- Justifying Israel - Saturday July 22, 2006 at 9:50 am
