Stardate 20020831.0951

(On Screen): Yesterday I made a post reacting to a rather feeble attempt by an editor at The Progressive to make a case against attacking Iraq. One of his points was that such an attack would violate "the Christian doctrine of 'just war'" and I responded that the US is not a Christian nation and running its foreign policy according to Christian doctrine, or any other religious doctrine, is a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.

Don writes:

You too easily dismiss Just War theory. Though coming from Christians, it is also a philosophically challenging approach. Exactly what are the criteria by which you can legitimately go to war? The Just War theorists have at least tackled the problem and mapped out a partial solution, and non-Christians can agree with at least parts of it.

Based on information he sent me, I located this page, which lays out certain principles which must be satisfied in order to wage "Just War". I thought I'd address each point, but I'm going to rearrange them slightly.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

This is probably the least controversial principle. At least with regards to the contemplated attack on Iraq, the US is obviously a "legitimate authority". One would think, anyway. Of course, you'll find some fringeists who will try to claim that the current government of the US is not a legitimate authority because of electoral irregularities. This excerpt from a letter I received a couple of days ago is typical of the style and attitude of such arguments:

Bush stole the election and has foisted an unconstitutional regime upon us. At every turn he has resisted any attempt at investigating 9-11 or the 2000 election. His Attorney General is a lawless and arrogant theocrat. Bush may not be a third world tinhorn dictator, but he has certainly acted like one.

To allow such a man to lead us into war would be the ultimate in folly. We may need to go to war with Iraq, but not with George W. Bush at the helm. In this and all matters political, I fault the Democrats for refusing to stand up to the current GOP which has become a lawless band of brigands fronting for lazy-assed Wall Street whores who believe that in the new economy no one has to work because money can be made from derivatives, IPOs and other buzzwords.

The only thing missing was a reference to "Amerikkka".

Moving right along:

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

I can understand this principle in principle but as a practical matter the difficulty with it is how "exhausted" any option has to be before it's considered exhausted, and how obscure and pointless any alternative must be before it's not a reasonable alternative to the last resort of war. For example, you can always avoid war by surrendering to your attacker, and this at least has the benefit of being effective.

What you'll see in practice is that come the decision to attack, some will claim that it was wrong because there could still have been a chance of avoiding war by continuing attempts at negotiation, or some other thing. In fact, that exact argument is being made now, by some who think that further attempts to try to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq might still succeed. It is to me, at least, blatantly obvious that the current regime in Iraq has no intention of actually cooperating with weapons inspections, and that their willingness (indeed, eagerness) to negotiate is a delaying tactic. I think further negotiations are a waste of time, and apparently so does the Bush administration.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

I can go along with this. Of course, the same objection can be raised here that this is great in principle but as a practical matter there will be no consensus. I'm extremely wary of the word "reasonable" because it is so highly subjective. One of the objections currently being raised against an attack on Iraq is that we can't know whether it might destabilize the entire region and cause further unrest elsewhere. To some extent what those people are arguing is that if we can't guarantee the outcome (and no one can guarantee the outcome of any war) then we shouldn't attempt it.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

Preferable to who? There are very few wars in history where both the winner and loser agree afterward that the result was positive. If the result must be considered preferable to the vanquished, then this amounts to a blanket prohibition of all war. If the result must only be considered preferable to the victor, then this would justify all w