ARTICLES

Just War or Dirty Harry

Colloquium Debates Iraqi Conflict

By Peter Halpin

On Saturday, March 1, at the University of San Francisco, the Seventh Annual Archbishop John R. Quinn Colloquium on Catholic Social Teaching addressed the question, "How should the Catholic Theological Tradition Approach the War on Terror?" Although the range of the question was the greater "War on Terror," it was quickly established that the specific topic of concern was the then-impending war with Iraq, a situation in which the "the Church probably does not speak with one voice," according to Dr. James Wiser, provost and academic vice-president of the university in his introductory remarks.

The three featured speakers -- George Weigel, senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Dr. George Lopez, senior fellow and director of policy studies at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame; and Marie Dennis, director of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns -- all presented distinct positions regarding the ethical status of war with Iraq.

Speaking first, Weigel based his discussion on a justification of war based on Catholic just war principles of just cause, legitimate authority, goods proportionate to evils, and the question of last resort. He acknowledged that the just war tradition does not provide an "exact calculus," but instead is a method for making the best judgments possible. In determining just cause, Weigel stressed that the present tendency to identify just cause only as "a response to an attack" must be broadened owing to two new variables in international relationships: the increasing destructive potential of weapons technology and the existence of rogue nations that operate at variance with international law and/or support terrorist organizations. Weigel claimed that in the present situation, beginning with the ejection of weapons inspectors in 1998, "it is entirely plausible. to say that aggression is under way." He also stressed that just cause in no way demands waiting to suffer an attack, because the legitimately constituted state authority has a responsibility to protect those under his authority from attack and not merely conduct retributive action.

Regarding proportionate goods and legitimate authority, Weigel focused specifically on the importance of tranquilitas ordinis, or the tranquillity of ordered nations as a an identifiable and morally just goal of military intervention. Weigel offered this as one of three primary ends that military action would provide, the other two being the "liberation of a people brutally oppressed" and a "new situation for change in the Middle East." While the latter two are obviously desirable, Weigel gave special attention to the stability of the international community, saying, "that the damage incurred by the breakdown of international organizations and thus [international] law would be catastrophic" if Iraq prevailed in its present gamble. The U.N. has contributed to its own damage in willing particular ends (in this case the disarmament of Iraq), and not willing the appropriate means of attaining said ends (the use of force). Thus, the U.N. risks being exposed "as a dangerous charade" in the eyes of the rest of the world. Furthermore, since the disarmament of Iraq has been positively demanded by the U.N., if force can be shown to be the only effective means of enforcement left, said Weigel, then a moral obligation is present to exercise that force whether the U.N. shows itself willing or not. Weigel acknowledged that it is imperative to demonstrate that force is indeed a last resort. That, in the case of Iraq, the U.N. had reached that last resort was demonstrated, said Weigel, by the fact that the "containment of Iraq cannot work under the present situation of the U.N.," that "inspectors [alone] cannot succeed in compelling disarmament of Iraq," and that "if Saddam gets a nuclear weapon, deterrence is no longer an option."

Lopez, in his presentation, did not take issue with the methodology of the just war tradition, but instead focused on whether or not the particular circumstances in fact fulfilled the criteria. In addition, Lopez described aspects of U.S. policy thus far that have created for him a certain skepticism over the motives of action in Iraq. He first claimed that the present situation regarding Iraq has been caused by an understandable "paralysis of dialogue following [the terrorist attacks of] 9/11." He said that in the wake of the attacks, the U.S. has tended towards a "Dirty Harry Ethic," which he described as consisting of the following assumptions: that there exist certain "really bad guys" that are exceptionally bad and that these bad guys "come back to bite you," as we have experienced. Thus we should "take off the handcuffs" and accept that "our allies will have a hard time joining us" because they don't share our understanding. Therefore, we should take action regardless of coalitions because "our allies will thank us in the end." It is this "new moral view" that, according to Lopez, has led to important factors that affect both diplomatic action as well as the fulfillment of just war criteria to be ignored in the present discussion.

Lopez presented an idea that he said has wrongly influenced U.S. policy, namely that "war precedes diplomacy and expects the latter to catch up." This idea has caused people not to question certain aspects of the debate, including the reality of the "imminent threat to the U.S." and the claim that Iraq will supposedly fall in six to 36 days. Both of these factors have strong implications for the fulfillment of just war criteria; in this case, the questions of just cause and proportion of possible goods to possible evils. He was especially wary of the possible situation of urban warfare and the possible evils of such a situation. Lopez further claimed that the public is "dramatically uninformed about the effectiveness of UNSCOM" (United Nations Special Commission) which has successfully destroyed the chemical and biological agents that have been found thus far.

Ultimately, Lopez claimed that Iraq has improperly been viewed as an exceptional situation requiring exceptional action, in this case preemptive attack, and that we continue to rely too much on the worst-case scenario, "the politics of if," in the formulation of U.S. policy. He maintained that "more understanding of the issues is needed, [and] less vilification" in order to come to a just conclusion regarding appropriate action towards Iraq. Lopez did not rule out the possibility of a justified war with Iraq, but held that that would not be the case until after an "emboldened [U.N. resolution] 1284" that allows inspectors to continue work is supported and then shown to be inadequate. He claimed that a war could not be justified until at least four to six months of more intensified inspection had taken place. Lopez also urged the audience to contact their congressional representatives and demand "an a priori ban on using nuclear weapons" against Iraq.

Both Lopez and Weigel were critical of the tendency of American war protesters to decry President Bush with no mention of Saddam Hussein as the active problem. Lopez mentioned that European protesters tended at least to be consistent in decrying both of them.

The final speaker, Marie Dennis, was less interested in engaging the specifics of the previous arguments, instead focusing on providing a reminder that "the value of life has to be the basis of the ethical discussions on the war on terror." She further stressed that the tendency to think of war as a good solution is the result of a pervading "lack of understanding of right-relation, or [the principle of] shalom." Shalom consists of a concern for an "integral well-being that embraces all creation." She returned to this principle repeatedly as a fundamental goal that needed to be established in order to progress in a meaningful way from war as a solution.

Dennis provided many anecdotes of her personal missionary experiences in Afghanistan after the U.S. campaign there and related that the damage of war was felt by all. Moreover, she demanded that the total scope of war's devastating effects, physical, psychological, environmental and social, needed to be at the heart of discussions regarding its total cost. Regarding the specific situation of Iraq, her stance was against military action because "the cost of war precludes it in this instance," also saying that "surely we can find new routes to world security" other than military conflict. Dennis further expressed skepticism towards the discussion of just war principles, claiming that "they are more often used to justify war than to preclude it." She also said that regarding terrorism, "non-response is unthinkable;" however, she did not advocate any particular action but instead focused on the attitudes that must ground the action "within [and] not outside of a human rights framework." She considered the recent anti-war protests to be a "remarkable challenge."

TOP